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

701–710 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#701

Post by kingbirdy »

maximente wrote: post #368
jacquesm wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. And 'broke' isn't 100% broke just yet, he's not going to have to sleep under a bridge. But he's broke enough that the wrong accident can put him on the far side of the line easily enough. Obviously this goes for many people but they tend to end up in that situation by accident, not by design and as an example to other billionaires he's pretty impressive. Try imagining Larry Ellison doing this.

it's really hard to imagine someone at age 89, with 2 social security incomes and $2M, who is apparently more frugal than most technology workers, being one "wrong accident" away from "the far side of the line easily enough". an 80% loss of that $2M cash leaves him with a paltry $400K which, assuming a rate of return == inflation, is 10 years of $40K/yr spending, to say nothing of 2x SS income. people's idea of "bein…

Based on the famous Trinity study [0], $2M would be enough for he and his wife to draw $80k/year plus social security. That's certainly more than most people are able to retire on, but I wouldn't call it lavish, and I imagine the remainder will be donated after death. I find it hard to fault him for wanting to make sure he and his wife can enjoy their last few years without having to worry too much about the exorbitant cost of end of life care in this country.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#702

Post by oska »

superhuzza wrote: post #645
dvt wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not sad at all. There are plenty of secular reasons for doing a good deed for the sake of the deed itself — not the reward or recognition. I mean, this is basically the entire underpinning of Kantian ethics.

That's exactly my point though. I'm an atheist, and I don't do good things out of a desire for "rewards in heaven", or rewards of any kind. I don't refrain from stealing because I'm afraid of hell or punishment. As you point out, they're done for the act itself. This passage presents altruism as a tit-for-tat deal with God. Do good, and you'll get some of that back...later. I promise! It's almost tacky.

> This passage presents altruism as a tit-for-tat deal with God.

Only by an extremely shallow reading.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#703

Post by andersonvom »

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…

Maybe it was the case, a long time ago, that the very rich accumulated their wealth by "living frugally", but it is certainly not the case anymore. Neither is the case that the estate tax discourages saving is just nonsense: at least in the US, the estate tax doesn't even apply is your estate is under $11M. [1]

> "As a result, only about 2,000 estates per year in the US are currently liable for federal estate tax." [2]

[1]: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_Sta...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#704

Post by sofal »

refurb wrote: post #616
nugget wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition of freedom is just anarchy. The obvious question: What's to stop somebody from murdering you and taking your wealth? The same objective (or subjective, take your pick) morality that discourages robbery-murder can effortlessly extend to the distribution of wealth in society. An objective moralist once said: "Render unto Caesar...". A subjective moralist could say: "whatever minimizes human suffering an…

Your definition of freedom is just anarchy How do you go from "it's no ones business how much wealth I accumulate or give to my children" to "anarchy"? That's not what the OP said at all.

It was just a bald assertion that one should have freedom to do what they want because we live in a free society.

If we live in a free society then we should be free to do what we want to do, because otherwise we wouldn't live in a free society.

Any argument that justifies itself merely with "because freedom" can be used to argue for complete anarchy. After all, "rule" of any sort inherently implies restrictions on freedom. And if restrictions on freedom are inherently bad, then "rule" of any sort must be bad by definition.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#705

Post by [deleted] »

andersonvom wrote: post #700
Mandatum wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is already how things work in the US: you only need to file if your estate is greater than 11.5MM as of 2020 [1]. "As a result, only about 2,000 estates per year in the US are currently liable for federal estate tax." [2] The argument that it "discourages living frugally" is just complete nonsense. [1]: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_ta…

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#706

Post by niij »

andersonvom wrote: post #700
Mandatum wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is already how things work in the US: you only need to file if your estate is greater than 11.5MM as of 2020 [1]. "As a result, only about 2,000 estates per year in the US are currently liable for federal estate tax." [2] The argument that it "discourages living frugally" is just complete nonsense. [1]: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_ta…

What GP proposed was a Wealth Tax which is an additional tax on _living_ people who have a net worth over a certain amount.

What you linked is an Estate Tax (aka death/inheritance tax) which only applies when someone passes wealth on after death. If they decide to give all their money away to charity or otherwise spend it while they're alive it does not apply.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#707

Post by opportune »

pyronik19 wrote: post #287
tasty_freeze wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two reasons to support a hefty inheritance tax on wealth over $X million. First, it raises revenue to help fill the deficit. More importantly, it is friction against generational wealth. Bill Gates (and his father) have for decades supported inheritance tax and gave this as the explicit reason.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want society out of my business... if I want to give it away that's my choice.. if I want my kids to live like kings that's also my choice.

I don’t see how a society with dynastic wealth is free, especially when that dynastic wealth further accumulates.

The problem for me is not even that people amass such large amounts of money (do I think we should have some higher tax brackets on capital gains, sure) but that generational wealth creates power and economic structures which hurt the rest of us and ultimately impinges many more peoples’ freedom

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#708

Post by s1artibartfast »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #633
s1artibartfast wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It was his money and he could have bought diamonds and shot them into the sun if he wanted. Instead it seems that the vast majority of the spending was a net positive to society and will do some good. Yes, there was probably a more impactful way of spending it from a humanitarian perspective, but presumably there wasn't a more satisfying way to spend it for Feeney. Nearly everything that everyone does is a negli…

Your objection falls flat. We can definitely analyze everybody else’s behavior another time - it’s not relevant here and only serves to distract. This one person had a huge fortune and explicit goals to spend it in efficacious charities. From that point of view, this particular story is one of exorbitant waste and missed opportunity, the magnitude of which should stupefy people. We’re not talking about some other joe…

I guess I’m still don’t understand the fundamental shock and sense of waste you describe. Frenzy didn’t hurt anyone here and provided a net benefit to society.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#709

Post by s1artibartfast »

ashton314 wrote: post #691
s1artibartfast wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why praise sacrifice at all? Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal. Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

This is a very utilitarian view, and it’s only considering the economic aspect at that. I’m not trying to argue that you’re wrong—I just want to suggest that there are other ways of looking at sacrifice that lead to the opposite conclusion. Giving to help someone worse-off than you—ideally—engenders a feeling of gratitude and humility that makes our society a better place. Experiencing a greater sense of gratitude ca…

I don’t see how sacrifice and suffering is necessary tied to charity, gratitude, humility and brotherhood.

Sacrifice can be a demonstration of love and caring, but is the latter that is important. Sacrifice is just evidence. Would you agree?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#710

Post by laurencerowe »

Daishiman wrote: post #688
winter_blue wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty. It denotes that he is subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master."

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

Post reply on HN