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

771–780 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#771

Post by fctorial »

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'…

How did he rank these? Some are obvious (1, 8). Can't really differentiate the rest. Any good articles about it?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#772

Post by fctorial »

gambiting wrote: post #753
richardw wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>They leave us suckers to pay. Except that's not true at all. Vast majority of taxes come from the richest. They might pay less percentage wise than me and you, but they pay the most in absolute terms. >>I think more of people who pay their fair share. I think more of people who pay more tax, not of those who pay more percentage wise. Ie - someone who makes a million dollars and pays 100k in tax seems to be contribu…

> They might pay less percentage wise than me and you

Isn't income tax higher for those that earn more?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#774

Post by cyberdrunk »

gridlockd wrote: post #375
sudhirj wrote: post #6

This is a role model I can actually appreciate. I can't figure out why this is the first time I've heard of him. I've seen lots of news about people buying expensive shit, but the fact that this has never come to my attention is a horrible indicator of what the media chooses to report on.

Buying "expensive shit" is an honest business transaction. Who do you think makes all this expensive shit? They all have families to feed, you know. If you're rich, buying expensive shit is probably the most beneficial thing you can do for society. By contrast, charities and non-profits get this halo of being socially beneficial, even though they're often some of the most wasteful institutions of all. Cornell gets a…

> If you're rich, buying expensive shit is probably the most beneficial thing you can do for society.

That's not true. You can go and pay people a 50 million dollars to make a yacht for you. Or you can pay that 50 million to other group of people to build housing for the poor. In both cases, it provides jobs and puts food on the table of the people you employed. But, the yacht is just a toy for you, while housing will be life-changing for hundreds of families.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#775

Post by nnt38 »

biztos wrote: post #523
gringoDan wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself Is it? This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. [1] However, utilitarians – notably Effective Altruists [2] – would make the opposite argument: what matters is the impact that you make with the dollars you donate (both in…

I am very happy he donated all that money, and I greatly respect him for doing it without calling too much attention to himself, especially compared to others. But it says a whole lot about Forbes that having at least $2M -- and I'm betting maybe a small apartment and a modest car and possibly even health insurance -- counts as "officially broke" in America.

Well he lost 98%+ of his wealth, that could be considered as going broke in relative terms.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#776

Post by SeanLuke »

Nathanba wrote: post #713
SeanLuke wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. I don't think it's what matters necessarily, but I do think that this is why he is receiving praise here and elsewhere. That's a problem, because if we're going to praise him for his sacrifice, we should remind ourselves that his sacrifice is minor compared to other donations due to the nonlinear effect of m…

Bill Gates' sacrifice includes the years of hard work, perseverance and self realization which produced the money.

Also stealing CP/M.

Time whitewashes everything. Bill Gates has spent many years doing good work as a philanthropist. I'm not sure this undoes the fact that much of his gain was from blatant cloning, ruthless abuse of monopoly, and substandard products.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#777

Post by nemo44x »

longtimegoogler wrote: post #509
nemo44x wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The middle class hasn't died at all. In fact it is larger today than ever before. It's just a bad narrative people have bought into. [1] In essence what has happened as the upper-middle class has grown over the last 40 years. Poor, lower-middle and regular middle class percentage has shrunk to its lowest levels. We have fewer poor people than ever before. But because the upper middle class has grown so much, middle c…

Interesting hypothesis. Thanks for the article. I will have to stew on this. It doesn't seem to jibe with the all angst about class that people seem to be feeling.

Some hypothesis I’ve read believe that because the upper middle has grown so much and is so visible, middle class people don’t feel as middle class.

More people have moved up than down. However as the nation has become more wealthy a greater share of the wealth has gone to upper middle than below them.

I think there’s so many dynamics at play here and it isn’t 100% cut and dry. For instance, there are more single parent (or single person) homes. Divorce isn’t socially unacceptable anymore and young people are waiting longer to get married. Do people lose the efficiencies of 2 earners in a household and possibly the class bump?

I’m not an expert on this but the data does show growth in the middle class by growing the upper-middle and a shrinking poverty class.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#778

Post by jurgenaut23 »

gambiting wrote: post #751
rapind wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9. When the donation wouldn’t occur without a tax break.

I never understood why people keep pointing out that charity donations "might" qualify as tax brakes, as if that's something bad or even worse - some way to cheat the system. Can someone explain this to me? As far as I understand - by donating X amount of money, the most you can possibly get, is an X deduction from your taxes. But the total amount of money spent at the end is still X. You haven't saved anything anywh…

Libertarians seem to think that taxes and charity donations are two equally valid (but not necessarily equally effective) ways to help your community. They feel like they have a choice to assign a portion of their wealth to either. Oftentimes, they also believe that charity will be a more effective approach by bypassing the bureaucracy of the state.

Some people believe that taxes are the primary way to implement solidarity among citizens of a state. I believe that they are correct. Charity comes only second, and should in no way impact taxes. Charity, although a beautiful thing, is fundamentally in-egalitarian: it is not benefiting the Republic as a whole, but only a fraction of people who are in need, and typically fulfill certain criteria (e.g., being Christian, living in a given area, etc.). In most cases, charity targets very specific needs and people that are seen by the wealthy as being worthy of their help. It has a fundamental flaw insofar it keeps the power of wealth allocation to the wealthy.

Notwithstanding corruption and aggressive lobbyism, taxes are much more egalitarian and democratic.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#779

Post by podgaj »

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…

Why is it good that we let one, unelected man decide how wealth is distributed in the community?

If we had taxed him at the rate we have taxed people in the 40's and 50's maybe there would not be such a need for all these "philanthropists" to give "their" money away.

And give me a break, he is NOT broke. I live on 20K a year and I do not even think I am broke. When he is living like St. Francis of Assisi let me know.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#780

Post by nnt38 »

tathougies wrote: post #722
nicoburns wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wouldn't the rich not be rich anymore without a government giving their money value?
Post reply on HN