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

741–750 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#741

Post by jstanley »

pavanky wrote: post #572
sokoloff wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO: There's something virtuous about living beneath your means and ensuring that you can be self-sufficient in your retirement. There's something virtuous about living beneath your means and ensuring that, at a minimum, you are not a burden to your family, but that ideally you provide them support rather than siphoning support from them. In order to do that, it's almost a given that you will die with money left over…

How many generations deep does "your family" run? Do you really think people with multiple billions of wealth were living beneath their means? (I agree with your point if they are upper middle class or even have 10-50 million dollars of wealth). But when you are part of the top 0.1% of the population, there is no way you are living beneat your means to be self sufficient in retirement.

> Do you really think people with multiple billions of wealth were living beneath their means?

Well it's hard to argue that anyone who has positive wealth is living beyond their means.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#742

Post by [deleted] »

wang_li wrote: post #418

One could argue that everyone has the same responsibilities to society at large. Thus for every Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates, you, personally you, have an obligation to create many billion dollars of value and give it away. If you don't do that, you're worse than any evil billionaire you care to name. They at least are paying millions of dollars in taxes for any money they pull out of investments. How many millions in…

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#743

Post by johnisgood »

wang_li wrote: post #418

One could argue that everyone has the same responsibilities to society at large. Thus for every Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates, you, personally you, have an obligation to create many billion dollars of value and give it away. If you don't do that, you're worse than any evil billionaire you care to name. They at least are paying millions of dollars in taxes for any money they pull out of investments. How many millions in…

Paying taxes is not a virtue. It is not voluntary, you are "forced to pay".

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#744

Post by headmelted »

andrepd wrote: post #529
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…

You "concede" that (a) is false? That's quite a strong claim. At least with "the government" managing it, there's at least some degree of democratic control, accountability, scrutiny, and influence. When that management is left to private enterprise, that's not the case.

Then you're getting into a philosophical debate about how morally "right" democracy actually is. That's dangerous territory.

I'm not saying I have a better idea, I don't, but democracy has been the driving force behind some pretty heinous stuff over the centuries (most obviously the resistance to equality of race, gay rights and universal suffrage). It's just less terrible than the alternatives that exist in the world today (e.g. dictatorship).

At least in giving your money to a Buffett, a Gates or a Feeney you have some evidence that they intend to put it to good use.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#745

Post by raxxorrax »

gringoDan wrote: post #483
andrepd wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course one could argue that we should not be dependent on the goodwill and grace of billionaires to choose to donate their wealth to good causes, but rather should tax fortunes at an onerous rate and put that money in public, democratic control, regardless. For each Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates how many Waltons OR Kochs do we have?

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…

That is quite a short sighted and funny evaluation.

It is so benignly restricted since it excludes the possibility of charity and government funding can have a positive impact. Instead it is some fight against good and evil.

I don't know what it has to do with Christianity, but you are free to visit a church, maybe they can tell you something about the gospel you linked.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#746

Post by imtringued »

wang_li wrote: post #571
andrepd wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I didn't know that "billionaires as a class" digged roads, erected buildings, manned trains, stores, telephones, farms, factories... "The low income households didn't build it", you have a very twisted definition of what that means.

I have the only relevant definition of what it means. But then again you know that and are commenting in bad faith. Which I should have expected given the content of you other comments.

You're ignoring that there is more to creating something than just paying for it. Someone had to exist and sacrifice their time and also their body (construction is dirty and taxing work) to build the infrastructure. By saying "Regardless, the middle income household certainly did not build it." you are not only disrespecting the work, you're also failing to understand what money really is about. It's one thing to be, narcissistic, ignorant and rude, it's another to be plain stupid.

I can trivially mint my own currency and become a billionaire yet I am unable to build infrastructure. When a street is about to be repaved I don't see any billionaires around, all I see is workers doing their job. Money on its own is worthless, it's just a convenient fiction that functions as a lubricant to make trade easy. Without a second party accepting your money on the other side you can't do anything with it. The power of a billionaire doesn't lie in their money, it lies in the ability to steer thousands of people to work for the billionaire. The middle class IS the wealth of the billionaire.

People are weird and think the abstraction is reality. Maybe it becomes clear when you look at a retirement scheme. Many of them are based on the idea that you contribute to a pension fund while young and that pension fund is immediately paying out to retirees. Doesn't this sound odd? Isn't this a pyramid scheme where we need more young people than old people? Why aren't people saving up their own money and then use their own money during retirement? Because that can't work. Imagine a closed community with 10 people who do not have children but are working and saving up money. Now all of them have retired and each of them has $1000000 saved up. Everyone is a millionaire but there is no food because everyone retired, nobody is working on the farms. The money only had value because there was a community of people working in exchange for money. Once the workers are gone, so is the value of that money.

Money and labor are tied together because all material goods are the product of labor (including infrastructure). Each dollar you own is just a promise that someone else will work for you. Billionaires just managed to get a lot of people to promise to work for them. That's why they don't have to work themselves.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#747

Post by sytelus »

Instead of giving away it all away, why not invest $8B which would generates about $800M per year in returns perpetually and give that as 0% loans for education, health and starting new businesses to people who needs it? This would be then perpetual giving that can outlast the donor.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#748

Post by imtringued »

jacquesm wrote: post #444
maximente wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Healthcare in the United States is perfectly designed to take your every last penny in the last 6 months of your life. If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed.

>If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed.

Aren't you forgetting that that he already "lost" the vast majority of his wealth? If he actually cared about the money he would have given it to his children. If he loses his last $2 million on healthcare he probably wouldn't care.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#749

Post by cm2187 »

andi999 wrote: post #730
cm2187 wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You should check out France to find out if high redistribution eliminates poverty (hint: it doesn’t).

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#750

Post by vxNsr »

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.

> Payday lenders might qualify?

Jewish law prohibits lending with interest. There are many ways around that but Maimonides here is referring to a basic non-interest loan

Post reply on HN