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

671–680 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#671

Post by TuringNYC »

winter_blue wrote: post #663
vicda wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think they are talking about the type of favors where your child with moderate grades suddenly gets accepted in Harvard.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#672

Post by benchaney »

billiam wrote: post #594
7402 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Maimonides was a smart dude, but I must say I don't understand the highest level here: do you have to know they are about to be impoverished? If so, don't you know their identity to give them a job, a loan, or a gift? Payday lenders might qualify? Maybe I need to consult a rabbi.

The idea is that helping people become self sufficient is more important than the concerns about who knows what. Even if both parties know who the other is, it is still the highest form of charity.

Though probably it is possible to do both. I suspect there are many modern charities that help people become self sufficient where neither the donors not the recipients know who each other are.

Disclaimer: IANAR (I am not a Rabbi)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#673

Post by daveFNbuck »

reddog wrote: post #518
daveFNbuck wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why name it after anything? "UCSF Children's Hospital" tells you everything you need to know.

Because naming rights have a very real, tangible value and you can sell them to further your mission? I guess Jerry Jones could have named his stadium "Dallas Cowboys Football Stadium" and that would have certainly told you everything you need to know. But instead he called it AT&T stadium and pockets $400 million. Both Jones and AT&T are happy. Same principle applies to colleges and hospitals.

I was responding to the question of what we should name buildings after, if not donors.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#674

Post by daveFNbuck »

anonAndOn wrote: post #382
daveFNbuck wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why name it after anything? "UCSF Children's Hospital" tells you everything you need to know.

Because they needed to raise a lot of money to build the new campus.[0] SF Children's was at the old location, Benioff Children's is at the new location. [0] https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/maps_and_directions/par...

I was responding to the question of what we should name buildings after, if not donors.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#675

Post by bena »

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.

Why donate? Why wouldn't you invest in it and become part-owner yourself?

But you can also flip that around: Let's say your dad opened a Facebook, but then dies, why should you get $98 billion? You didn't do anything. Why is that now yours in the first place?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#676

Post by sokoloff »

ebg13 wrote: post #619
vasco wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did not start with everything.

That's wonderful and not relevant to whether giving away an amount that still leaves you with everything is impressive.

In what way does he still have everything? It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income in my state. That’s a long walk from everything in my book.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#677

Post by agarden »

bena wrote: post #668
settrans wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Passing wealth on to one's children is natural. It has been practiced time immemorial. The Jewish faith is predicated on the idea that promises made to Abraham can be fulfilled by giving the thing promised (land) to his descendants many generations after his death. Take away the idea that wealth should be passed down to one's children and the Jewish faith does not cohere. By extension, neither does the Christian faith.

The idea that you think needs to be defended - inheritance - lies near the root of Western mores. It is fine to question it, but it is the sort of thing that one cannot refute without a very, very strong argument.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#678

Post by phs318u »

hansvm wrote: post #622
phs318u wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sincerely meant, but if you consider 2 and 1, isn't that a description of progressive taxation in the modern, regulated-capitalist, social-democratic welfare state? (btw, I made that description up to try and describe the kinds of states I'm referring to. e.g. the USA once was in that category and no longer is in my view, while many European countries probably are in that category). EDIT: I'd like to point ou…

Not really; taxation is compulsory. If you steal everything I own and distribute it to try to improve other people's lives, I don't suddenly have any kind of charitable moral high ground because of where my money went, and neither would I be complicit if it were used to hire puppy hitmen or whatever evildoers like to do these days. The end effect is similar, but intent matters.

I agree that intent matters, but insofar as a state governs with the consent of a majority (leaving aside questions of whether that consent is real), then taxation (incl. the level of taxation and its distribution e.g. welfare vs warfare) represents a broadly agreed mechanism of the state to provide the kind of safety net that OP described as levels 2 and 1.

Personally, I live in such a state (not the US), that has a safety net, and am happy to contribute via taxation. Not all my fellow citizens are happy to contribute and I accept that. I earn a decent wage and don't jump through hoops to minimise my tax. At the end of the day, people vote for governments that are more or less taxing.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#679

Post by sokoloff »

bena wrote: post #668
settrans wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I don’t see my estate going to my kids as their doing, but instead as my doing.

I have private property rights over my money and house during my life and it’s my choice to consume during my life or live more frugally and pass that property to people I love. When I give my kids money for school or give them dinner, that value is not taxed additionally because it benefits them and not just me.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#680

Post by ebg13 »

sokoloff wrote: post #676
ebg13 wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wonderful and not relevant to whether giving away an amount that still leaves you with everything is impressive.

In what way does he still have everything? It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income in my state. That’s a long walk from everything in my book.

> It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income

Oh come on. He's 89 years old and has millions of dollars still. How long do you expect him to live? "Sustainably generating" a median household income in perpetuity is an interesting bar to set. You're aware that most of the country doesn't have any savings at all, yeah? That the current median _at_retirement_age_ savings for the US is around 150K? That he's still getting an actual income from social security payments because why not?

Post reply on HN