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

731–740 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#731

Post by richardw »

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.

It’s the cost for some. If you’re rich enough you pay far less tax because you have access to an army of people whose job it is to help you do that. They leave us suckers to pay.

That’s not right. I think more of people who pay their fair share. Feels like a moral issue for me.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#732

Post by andi999 »

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'…

I love this. 8-2 is all about the donor (how he feels, how morally it is) and basically 1 is about the recepiant what would be best for him/her.

It is like results matter most (less than the process; big corps will disagree on that)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#733

Post by zpeti »

pwinnski wrote: post #356
zpeti wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also - does he actually "have money"? Tesla and SpaceX don't make a profit or pay dividends. My guess is he finances his entire life from taking on debt which is secured against his stock. So how exactly are people like him supposed to just give money away? What happens to the stock he owns then? Would he forgo control of his companies? How would he pay taxes on that income anyway? Lots of questions the billionaires-…

He started out with a lot of money from his family's South African mining operations. Your mockery is ill-directed, and in the context of a post about someone whose corporate wealth was able to be donated to charity, in really poor taste.

Yeah, because Elon is obviously where he is now because of family money... jesus christ.

Ever heard of Zip2 and Paypal?

Your resentment and jealousy based communist thinking is pretty ugly.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#735

Post by yossarian1408 »

mleonhard wrote: post #654
yossarian1408 wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not related to the article, however the third paragraph of your comment touches on a controversial idea, so I'll add another perspective. On the idea of sacrifice as virtuous. Sacrifice is only compatible with selfishness. This is because for an action to be a sacrifice, there is two criteria in which it must meet. The first criteria are that the individual must love themselves. She who has no value of her own life,…

Trades are not all selfish. A person trades selfishly if they are trying to get some benefit for themselves. Trying to benefit only other people is not selfish. Every rational choice is made based on some personal values. A person with unselfish personal values can take action on those values. Do you think their action occurs because of their selfishness? Are all rational actions selfish? I think that is not a useful…

The comment I was replying to mentioned it being noble for a woman to starve herself to give $25 to a stranger.

I disagree, and I pointed out the contradiction of praising sacrifice while disparaging self-interest, when the two are not possible without each other. If you disagree with that, I would be interested in hearing why.

Trades are not all selfish.

I never made the point that trades are inherently selfish, only that in some trades monetary gain is not the only form of currency.

Are all rational actions selfish?

Yes. You state in your second paragraph that "Every rational choice is made based on some personal values". I agree. If you act on your own personal values, this is selfish. And as all rational choice must be in service of personal values, then all rational action is selfish.

I'm very open to the idea that I'm wrong on all of this, but I can not see how, so I thank you for engaging with my comment.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#736

Post by andi999 »

nicoburns wrote: post #553
gringoDan wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either: (a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a better way than billionaires do, or (b) I concede that (a) is false, but I don't care. It's not about the impact we make with the money, it's about dragging billionaires down. Personally, I'm interested in impact. I have little faith that paying taxes to the US…

I certainly believe (a), but there is a 3rd option (c) I believe in direct wealth distribution (e.g. via a basic income) and that you believe 100m people with $10 will spend that money in a better way than 1 person with $1bn.

(d) I believe 1 person will spend $1bn much better than 100m will spent $10.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#737

Post by michaelt »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #709
ashton314 wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some people see risk and sacrifice of the self as the foundation of heroism.

A fire code inspector might save more lives than a fire fighter, but nobody sells calendars of sexy fire code inspectors, or hands out medals for bravely insisting that tower block's staircase have a sprinkler system fitted.

Of course, an Effective Altruist / utilitarian would say who cares about feelings and medals? After all, altruism by definition isn't seeking medals.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#738

Post by acqq »

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #555
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'…

Muslims also have a similar tier system of giving charity, but because Islam mandates charity from its followers at a fixed rate (a flat income tax for charity), it places the "communal funds" very low in the totem pole. Actually the Prophet Muhammad said a similar thing to what Feeney has said here about wanting to give charity while alive rather than after his death: > A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah'…

I guess Jewish "tzedakah" and Arabian "zakat" have anyway both the same linguistic root, both being Semitic languages and everything related happening in the same small part of the world (if the word itself has some other origins).

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#739

Post by piokoch »

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…

Very true...

And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”

Luke 21:1-4

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#740

Post by [deleted] »

nitrogen wrote: post #93
mulmen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about what other people have done. Just what I can do. Just working in a food bank or picking up roadside trash on a weekend. It doesn't take much.

I think their point is similar to the one from this article: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF/purchase-f... Basically if you make a high tier engineer's salary, you could do more utilitarian good by hiring several people to work at a food bank on the weekends. Roadside trash pickup is an example of a problem in need of a systemic solution, so if you can reduce litter in the first place, or build a ma…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN