Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#781

Post by gambiting » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:29 PM UTC

fctorial wrote: post #772

gambiting wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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?

Usually, yes, if you are paid like a normal employee. I'm jumping straight to the point that many people have an issue with - that once you're wealthy enough, you don't make most of your money through a salary, you make it through capital gains, dividends, and other financial tools that make your effective tax rate much lower than it would have been had you taken it as a salary.

In a huge oversimplification, let's say you're in UK and make £100k/year. If you take that as salary, you'll pay 20% tax on around £40k of it, then 40% tax on £50k, with the remaining £10k being tax free. On the other hand, if you open a limited company that makes £100k, well, you're only paying 10% corporation tax on any profits - but of course the way to play this game is to expense everything imaginable under the sun, so ideally you have close to zero profit at the end of the tax year. Yes, the money isn't "yours", it belongs to the company, but you can expense things like your rent, gas, electricity, "work meals" etc. Then take £10k salary from your own company which is within the tax-free allowance. Voila, in the eyes of someone external, you've made £100k but through "clever tricks" paid less than 10% tax on all of it. Of course most people don't realize that isn't not that simple, but things like this lead to very quick judgement.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#782

Post by SeanLuke » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:35 PM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #758

vicda wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10. When the donation gives you favors in return.

Then you're on a very thin line between a donation and a bribe.

It's a large portion of major donations.

If Bob Johnson donates $20M to a hospital to create the Johnson Cancer Wing, he is in benefiting himself: he is buying his name on a building.

If Bob donates $20M to a local symphony orchestra that he attends, he is benefiting himself by buying better music for him to listen to.

If Bob donates $20M to a candidate for office whose policies would ultimately benefit Bob, well...

I wouldn't call these bribes. But they're less like donations and more like purchases.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#783

Post by Retric » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:35 PM UTC

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…

That’s far from accurate. Income taxes contribute ~$1.932 trillion, but payroll taxes add $1.373 trillion and are often ignored in these calculations. As social security is capped at relatively low income levels the tax burden on the rich is much lower than often suggested.

Further, the often quoted top 1% is hardly the rich in the US, if you compare the income vs taxes paid of the top 0.01% their paying a lower percentage of their income than the average programmer in federal taxes. State taxes have a similar breakdown with property taxes, fuel taxes, etc representing a vastly lower burden for the 0.01% of income earners.

This is further compounded when you consider tax free wealth accumulation of capital gains where taxing in sale mean zero tax on possibly decades of income, or possibly ever. You don’t deduct charitable donations from social security taxes.

PS: As to what the rich receive in taxes. They receive a functioning society which is economically worth far more to themselves than lower income earners.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#784

Post by Abishek_Muthian » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:36 PM UTC

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…

Although the 'Billions' Chuck Feeney gave away would likely be the focus of his story, his greatest achievement IMO is creating the 'actionable model for philanthropy' which others have since followed creating a much larger impact from what was done through his wealth alone.

>this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself

I absolutely agree and think of this often when I see the philanthropy figures published each year when the top Billionaires have donated [1]https://yourstory.com/socialstory/2019/11/tea-seller-kanpur-...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#785

Post by Applejinx » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:36 PM UTC

sjtindell wrote: post #606

nicoburns wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who leans towards a general rule of government == inefficient but doesn’t necessarily like the logic of “billionaire individuals will allocate it better”, I really like your option C re-frame here.

Yes. I'm far less worried about government == inefficient (I've learned too much about AI and the genetic algorithm to have faith in human-based optimization strategies, and this is one reason I'm enthusiastic about population-based optimization along Basic Income lines) but possibly even more offended by the logic that specifically billionaires will allocate wealth better.

I feel like the very existence of billionaires demonstrates that they are a self-selecting pool of abusers and/or criminals running exploits that place their interests above the system they're in. Even the idea of 'the wealthy allocate money better' is ridiculous. Towards what, themselves? It's like saying cancer allocates body resources better, because cancer can get into a position where it conclusively 'wins'.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#786

Post by endymi0n » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:37 PM UTC

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'…

Level one sounds suspiciously close to actually paying taxes and let the social net built on it work its magic.

Now come on, downvote me to hell.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#787

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:41 PM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #750

billiam wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#788

Post by Applejinx » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:41 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #635

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…

Billionaires act against the interest of the working class more than they act in favor of it. That's how they became billionaires.

Billionaireness is profoundly extractive by definition. Leave class out of it and billionaires inherently benefit themselves against any and every system they are in, and that's including other billionaires (they're exceedingly competitive).

That means that billionaires also act against the interests of the donor class as a matter of course. If they were not the very definition of unaccountable power, you wouldn't see anybody defending them or their typical behaviors.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#789

Post by lr4444lr » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:42 PM UTC

audiometry wrote: post #661

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'…

It's kind of a weird escalation -- steps 8->2 incrementally make sense (the more anonymized you are, the 'better'). But then the difference between step 2 and step 1 is totally different, the distinction is no longer anonymity, but some measure of efficacy of the support.

I think the point is that the sustainability of preventing poverty and making someone self sufficient is nuanced and not just a simple transfer funds. It's such an improvement over the other donor -> recipient charity which _don't_ fix dependency that the anonymization and cheerfulness of the exchange doesn't even matter: fixing the core problem permanently is a higher goal by kind, not just degree.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#790

Post by names_are_hard » Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:44 PM UTC

audiometry wrote: post #661

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'…

It's kind of a weird escalation -- steps 8->2 incrementally make sense (the more anonymized you are, the 'better'). But then the difference between step 2 and step 1 is totally different, the distinction is no longer anonymity, but some measure of efficacy of the support.

Maybe the axis is not anonymity per se but the dignity preserved by the recipient. Anonymity is not the goal, it's a means to an end. And providing employment achieves that end even better than anonymity does.

In this light the lower levels also make sense, each progressive level allows the recipient to feel less guilty (the donor is not annoyed that they have to help, or doesn't even need to be asked, etc). The really interesting bit here is that the levels are not about how much the donor sacrifices but how good the recipient feels.