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

721–730 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#721

Post by TeMPOraL »

Miraste wrote: post #339
TeMPOraL wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Earning to give" doesn't mean you have to earn in dishonest fashion.

You can't become a billionaire through honest earnings. The degree is variable but the presence is inevitable, becoming required more the more billions you amass. Of course, you can take the ethical route, but those people don't get the billions.

'CrazyStat answered the ethics part, but I also want to point out that "earning to give" doesn't mean you have to become a billionaire. It means you want to maximize your earnings to the degree you're capable and comfortable with ethically. "Ends justify the means" is not a part of "earning to give" philosophy, even though some people probably adopt this principle.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#722

Post by tathougies »

nicoburns wrote: post #361
pyronik19 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Society is the only thing enforcing the private property laws that allow you to amass stuff in the first place. If society wasn't involved there would be nothing to stop anyone simply taking your stuff. Society enforces such rules because they are conducive to a good society for everyone. It has every right to stop enforcing them at the point at which that ceases to be the case. > That or we stop pretending we live i…

The only thing enforcing private property is the threat of violence if you violate someone else's property. This enforcement can come via a socialized system like government and this is preferable. But you are delusional to think the truly rich need to rely on government. Without 'society' you get survival of the richest and most violent instead of just wealth inequality

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#723

Post by _fq4v »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #628
cobookman wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires??? I'm curious what the statistics are for a family remaining wealth over a long period of time. Even with wealth evenly split between each generations kids, given a growth of just 4% it might end up with each generation getting a greater amount of wealth still. In the past large familes prevented this, but if the average extremely wealthy person onl…

> I'm curious what the statistics are for a family remaining wealth over a long period of time. I don't have statistics, but a fun factoid is that the Grosvenor family, who own many properties in the west end of London, were originally granted those properties because the grantee was the grand-nephew of William the Conqueror. So wealth can last a long time. For those families who are luckiest and canniest, the only m…

Familial wealth disperses much quicker in the United States than other countries. Comparing modern american economics to the descendants of william the conqueror in feudal pre capitalist society with an entrenched aristocracy is disingenuous. You cannot seriously use that as an example of why wealth will last in american families like that.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#724

Post by gxon »

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…

A caveat to this is, what happens when we actually solve aging and involuntary death? Will the world eventually be owned by a single, Bezos like individual simply by the weight of time and compounding interest crowding out everyone else? Would we be ok with a situation where the racist slave owners of 200 years ago are still alive and control the vast majority of the world's wealth and power?

This is the kind of concern that isn't a problem right now, but will be one day. And it will happen in the blink of an eye.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#725

Post by freddie_mercury »

cobookman wrote: post #403
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??? I'm curious what the statistics are for a family remaining wealth over a long period of time. Even with wealth evenly split between each generations kids, given a growth of just 4% it might end up with each generation getting a greater amount of wealth still. In the past large familes prevented this, but if the average extremely wealthy person onl…

The book The Son Also Rises makes a fairly compelling (albeit contested) case that extreme wealth continues to have beneficial impact for hundreds of years.

The author shows numerous examples but one of the most striking for English-speakers is that the Norman conquerors of 1086 are still, 31 generations later, over-represented at places like Oxford and Cambridge admissions and upper class probate court records.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#726

Post by freddie_mercury »

newguy1234 wrote: post #630
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…

Curious, what exactly stops these rich families from simply moving their wealth off shore? I'm sure there are many other countries that would bend over backwards to have these uber rich families living in their country instead of the USA.

It doesn't matter if you live in another country. US citizens are still taxed by the US government regardless of where in the world they live. Moving to another country accomplishes nothing.

They would have to give up their US citizenship. Financial implications aside, few are willing to go that far. The financial implications are also large. You have to pay an exit tax, which would be substantial. And giving up US citizenship to avoid taxes is illegal, so there's that too...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#727

Post by pood »

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…

Curb your enthusiasm — the anonymous donor.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#728

Post by dingaling »

halflings wrote: post #273
raz32dust wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think thinking in terms of percentage of income doesn't work, because the lower your income, the lower a percentage you can afford to give away. I have found it better to think of it as a percentage of your non-essential expenses. e.g, if you spend $500 per month on non-essential things (eating out, movies, netflix, amazon impulse buys etc.), then you can afford giving away 10% of it ($50 per month) to charity.

Shouldn't it be a % of (income - essential expenses), rather than % of non-essential spending? If you're very frugal, you'd end up giving away a very small amount of money, saving all the rest... Saving is super important, but giving money to effective charities is also a great way to use your money. To take a typical example of someone that might be reading HN, any software engineer working in NY or the Bay Area can…

> but giving money to effective charities is also a great way to use your money

Those charities aren't going to help you when you're retired and subsiding on a meagre state pension. Or if there's a resurgent global pandemic and you lose your job and home.

Save first, always.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#729

Post by zzapplezz »

hirundo wrote: post #149

Compare two billionaires. One stops and carefully donates his money to have the most impact. He ends up "officially broke." The other doubles down on for profit enterprises, but focuses on those with the most impact, like electrifying a fossil fueled sector of the economy or making us a multi-planetary species. The profits are reinvested to accomplish these goals. He ends up richer than ever. It isn't clear that the…

Buffett & Munger agree with you. (paraphrasing here) Munger cited Costco as an incredibly important, effective, and efficient institution that couldn't be replaced by a non-profit or government. It has lowered the costs of essential goods while treating its workers well.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#730

Post by andi999 »

cm2187 wrote: post #718
Daishiman wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It comes from the same pocket. The scale of charitable donations is usually inversely proportional to tax rates and redistribution in a country. When people are highly taxed in high redistribution countries, they feel less compelled to give directly since the state is doing it for them (in addition to having less disposable income).

Maybe there is also less need/causes to donate to if living in a high redistribution country (and yes proximity is important for a lot of people at least emotionally).
Post reply on HN