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

681–690 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#681

Post by sokoloff »

csomar wrote: post #318
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…

I don't get it, the Rockefeller family has an estimated net worth of $11bn today. That's for 174 members of this family or around $63m per family. While not a small amount, it's not outrageous either; especially that it's an old family, so they haven't really accumulated lots of wealth. You'd think compound interest would have made them own much more than that. On the other hand, Bezos, a single person, has control o…

Am I ok with someone having control over the company they founded and have successfully led for multiple decades? Yes, I am.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#682

Post by eggsmediumrare »

lemmonii wrote: post #521
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…

>Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires? Because we live in a system which rewards good genes, and that is a very good thing. By instituting a generational wealth tax you will be killing the human desire for wealth on a generational timescale. Where does the money go? To other people i assume, you have now created a system where the evolutionary incentive is to leech from the system contrib…

This is a not good line of thinking. Good genes? What does that mean, greed? Competitiveness? What about positive human traits like empathy, compassion, generosity and contentment? The things that make society work in the first place? Plus it's not like billionaires have more kids. "Leeches" aren't poisoning the gene pool... Your "leeches" are the gene pool.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#683

Post by pckhoi »

superasn wrote: post #160

Is a person who invests that money for-profit but makes giant advancements in maths/science while doing it an equally big giver? Take for example, Elon musk. Even though he hasn't given monet away to charities like Chuck, his for-profit enterprises like electric cars, solar farms, spacex and possibly neuralink might just have been things that end up equally great for humanity. So if you have billions I guess timtowtd…

As long as the intention is to actually create wealth for the society as a whole as opposed to just making yourself rich, I don't see a problem to what Elon does.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#684

Post by cmonnow »

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…

Charity in Hinduism falls under 3 modes, as with pretty much everything else in Hinduism - Tamas, Rajas & Sattva

Tamas - given at wrong place/time, to wrong (unworthy) person, without respect/decency, with contempt.

Rajas - given with reluctance, expecting return (either from recipient, or praise)

Sattva - given at right time/place, to right (worthy) person, with humility, without expectation of return.

Note that while others religions mainly dwell on not expecting return and anonymity, Hinduism stresses not expecting return but does not stress anonymity as much as it stresses finding the right patra (bowl) i.e. right recipient.

Donating $100 to a poor person, who also happens to be wicked, and/or will definitely spend it on vices, is actually a bad donation, because it causes more harm to the recipient and society, than good.

Also, timing - a litre of blood donated to a save a life in urgent time, is worth more than a litre of blood spilled in war to gain territory.

Also, place - a donation done in holy land or temple is worth more than a donation from a local philanthropy club.

Also, the reward for donation is gaining goodwill in the heart of Bhagavan (God). And He dishes out goodwill proportional to the 'effort' rather than 'amount' - a $100 wage earner donating $10 is judged the same as $100 million donated by a billionaire.

Source : Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 17, verses 20,21,22

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#685

Post by lemmonii »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #682
lemmonii wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires? Because we live in a system which rewards good genes, and that is a very good thing. By instituting a generational wealth tax you will be killing the human desire for wealth on a generational timescale. Where does the money go? To other people i assume, you have now created a system where the evolutionary incentive is to leech from the system contrib…

This is a not good line of thinking. Good genes? What does that mean, greed? Competitiveness? What about positive human traits like empathy, compassion, generosity and contentment? The things that make society work in the first place? Plus it's not like billionaires have more kids. "Leeches" aren't poisoning the gene pool... Your "leeches" are the gene pool.

Individuals are made from genes.

I agree we should strive for a system which incentivises empathy, compassion, generosity and contentment.

Billionares do not have more kids but wealthy people have the capacity to have more healthy offspring, irregardless if they actually do.

I have said nothing about poisoning the gene pool, i am not a eugenicist and far from it. But every system has free-riders (leeches) as game theory predicts, we should try to counteract this behaviour not reward it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#686

Post by rhacker »

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…

How about tax rate for any money that isn't directly tied to employing people at 90%?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#688

Post by Daishiman »

winter_blue wrote: post #656
cm2187 wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

11. When your donation is taken by force through taxes

Not sure why you're being downvoted, you actually do have a good point... I guess people are uncomfortable with directly acknowledging that social programs are funded by "donations" that are taken by force (i.e. taxes).

They're not "donations".

They're taxes, period. There's no moral benefit to paying them in the same way there's no moral benefit to obeying traffic laws. It's not a charity as it's not voluntary. It's the cost of playing the game.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#689

Post by rhacker »

akhosravian wrote: post #335
csours wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have an answer, but to flip that question: If the very wealthy can live on passive income from accumulated wealth, then why can't all of society?

Let's liquidate all US billionaires and spread that money to every person in the US. Let's also set aside the question of how one could legally liquidate the billionaires. Per https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/05/21/the-net-wo... the combined net worth of every US billionaire was 3.4 trillion in May of this year. Per https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/3-ways-that-the-u-s-popu... there were 331 million Amer…

OR, just parcel out land and give people seeds and allow them to trade with nearby neighbors... There's no longer a need for money and everyone gets to eat - which is all we really need. Beyond that, people can help each other build homes in smallish communities. Money, even on a planet with this many people, isn't necessary, because it's like people driving cars - the system works because everyone is operating to keep themselves alive. HN is not a fan of this take.
Post reply on HN