Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#661

Post by audiometry »

7402 wrote: post #525
SeanLuke wrote: post #284

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…

Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor'…

It's kind of a weird escalation -- steps 8->2 incrementally make sense (the more anonymized you are, the 'better'). But then the difference between step 2 and step 1 is totally different, the distinction is no longer anonymity, but some measure of efficacy of the support.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#662

Post by ROARosen »

SeanLuke wrote: post #284

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…

>we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself

While it is truly selfless, I'm not sure what is __really__ harder; for a person living a multi-billion-dollar lifestyle to change to a million-dollar lifestyle, or someone who is used to living on the penny, to give away most of what they have....

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#663

Post by winter_blue »

vicda wrote: post #612
rapind wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9. When the donation wouldn’t occur without a tax break.

10. When the donation gives you favors in return.

> 10. When the donation gives you favors in return.

What if the "favor in return" is a reward after death? For a lot of people of faith, their motivation to donate is often post-resurrection reward... (The Bible is fairly against this attitude though. As Jesus for instance says "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" -- https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MAT.6.3.ESV ; and the general message seems to be that everything you have is a gift from God, so you're actually only just giving away what you've been gifted.)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#664

Post by mleonhard »

settrans wrote: post #261
bedhead wrote: post #240

I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it’s this dynastic wealth that I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are similarly off-putting, as they are…

An Open Letter from Economists on the Estate Tax To whom it may concern: Spend your money on riotous living – no tax; leave your money to your children – the tax collector gets paid first. That is the message sent by the estate tax. It is a bad message and the estate tax is a bad tax. The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth. It discourages saving a…

Without a large estate tax, oligarchy arises and destroys democracy.

If everyone lived virtuously, then society wouldn't need laws or taxes. Unfortunately, humans are inconsistently virtuous, so we use laws and taxes to help our society function well.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#665

Post by baddox »

SeanLuke wrote: post #284

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…

This whole idea kinda loops back on itself and I wonder if wanting to donate your wealth in order to achieve “higher rungs” isn’t itself a perverse incentive than a rung system ought to penalize!

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#667

Post by pech0rin »

young_unixer wrote: post #659
bedhead wrote: post #240

I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it’s this dynastic wealth that I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are similarly off-putting, as they are…

What's wrong with leaving your wealth to your offspring? What I find sickening is people trying to meddle in other people's pockets.

Because it exacerbates the divide between the wealthy and the poor in this country, creating classes of wealth that is so far beyond a normal person as to live in a different realm. It creates a ruling oligarchy class that is passed down not on merit or by work, but purely through nepotism.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#668

Post by bena »

settrans wrote: post #261
bedhead wrote: post #240

I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it’s this dynastic wealth that I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are similarly off-putting, as they are…

An Open Letter from Economists on the Estate Tax To whom it may concern: Spend your money on riotous living – no tax; leave your money to your children – the tax collector gets paid first. That is the message sent by the estate tax. It is a bad message and the estate tax is a bad tax. The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth. It discourages saving a…

I understand you are not Friedman, so assume I'm using the general "you" below and that any questions I pose are rhetorical and not directed at you. I don't expect you to even attempt to answer anything below or even have considered the questions.

His argument is hilarious:

"We're going to try and avoid it anyway, so you might as well not try to collect it."

I'm sorry, but I'm not necessarily going to trust someone who has a vested interest in the removal of something that its existence was pointless in the first place. If it truly is meaningless, then why bother?

Another good question is why should a person's accumulated wealth go to that person's heirs upon their death? Those people did nothing themselves to earn that wealth. It is only through the accident of birth they were selected. They completely ignore that. It is assumed that passing their wealth down is natural and right and that any other outcome needs defense.

If that money changed hands via employment or purchase of goods and services, it would have been taxed, even if the exchange was between parent and child. Why is an exchange upon death special?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#669

Post by Mandatum »

niij wrote: post #313
mattmanser wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turning greed into a virtue, feels like something only an American economist could do!

The same could be said about people who want to take other's money away. People are spend-thrifts enough as it is, a wealth tax just dis-incentivizes being fiscally responsible.

How about a wealth tax on everything above $10MM?

Suddenly 99% of the world is no longer discouraged from being fiscally responsible. Do I really care if a billionaire is fiscally irresponsible? Maybe for a single generation. After that, we're good.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#670

Post by mleonhard »

paulpauper wrote: post #452
bedhead wrote: post #240

I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it’s this dynastic wealth that I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are similarly off-putting, as they are…

This would hurt family owned businesses. Under such a system, within a family, everyone would keep their money to themselves. Let's say your dad wants to open a restaurant, so you donate $1 million, and the business does well, but then he unexpectedly dies and the his net worth is assessed at $5 million. Now you are out $1 million due to the tax. pretty bad deal.

In your example, you could just make a loan instead of a donation.
Post reply on HN