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

461–470 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#461

Post by unethical_ban »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #446
lotsofpulp wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would get rid of all tax deductions period, but in the case of non anonymous donations, the chance of quid pro quo and inability to prove it is so high, that I just view it as a tax loophole for the rich. If it lowers the amount people donate, then it proves my point...that people were intending to get something in return, hence not a donation.

Absolutely a good comment. Tax the rich, replace philanthropy with Democracy. Pathetic that PP is getting downvotes.

Get off the high horse. He didn't explain his original position at all, and frankly it's an ideal that seems very unrealistic. I agree that we should be taxing the ultra-rich a lot more, but "prohibiting donations that have names attached" is legislating morality as much as "don't buy liquor on Sundays".

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#462

Post by AQuantized »

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…

This seems like a strange argument since someone who is say, running a large conglomerate, benefits much more from society's infrastructure and organization than a layperson. It then seems reasonable for their obligation to be proportionally greater.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#463

Post by jcheng »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #424
lordnacho wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the reduce the amount of donations greatly? Gotta think most people do it at least partly for recognition, otherwise there'd be nothing noteworthy about the article we're discussing.

I would get rid of all tax deductions period, but in the case of non anonymous donations, the chance of quid pro quo and inability to prove it is so high, that I just view it as a tax loophole for the rich. If it lowers the amount people donate, then it proves my point...that people were intending to get something in return, hence not a donation.

Unless there's actual corruption involved (like giving to a "charity" that actually fuels your personal expenses), how could a deductible gift be used a tax loophole?

I've heard the misconception that one could use a deduction to bump yourself into a lower tax rate on your entire income, and therefore come out ahead, but that's not how U.S. federal income tax rates work.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#464

Post by conception »

dageshi wrote: post #396
newsclues wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You speak of frugal living, but why live frugally amassing great wealth? There is a difference between having money to be self sufficient and sitting on billions of dollars

Typically those billions aren't liquid, they're usually shares in some business you've built which you may not want to sell because it'll dilute your control in the business.

We used to call those fiefdoms.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#465

Post by whiddershins »

andrepd wrote: post #410
teruakohatu wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gates' wealth keeps increasing. Sure he gives a lot away but, but he is making 1+ billion per year above what he gives away. It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates' is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100/year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million. In other words, I don't think anyone cla…

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?

One could argue that there is probably some correlation between great wealth and good judgement about the effective use of money.

In that regard, perhaps it’s good to have social intervention performed by a mixture of democratic and individualistic entities. Perhaps one will address things that the other might miss.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#466

Post by amatic »

jandrese wrote: post #338
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

From the article: > And he gave it away anonymously. While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret.

Oh, the old "I gave anonymously, but they still know my name" trick. Larry David had this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKrb9b4s28

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#467

Post by burner831234 »

jb188 wrote: post #443
JoshTriplett wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a very public show of philanthropy as a means of self-promotion or self-aggrandizement isn't awesome, though frankly if letting people feel good with a little recognition results in more donations then that seems well worth it. But there are other reasons to make a public show of philanthropy: to encourage others to give, to be a part of giving campaigns, to draw attention to an issue you consider important, t…

Yeah, there's a misconception that it is more morally righteous to give quietly than to give and take credit and that's debatable. $100M is a $100M whether the person is anonymous or not and if not, it can lead to more of the same, even if the motivation is self-aggrandizement. I mean, take that out to a long conclusion and you get a society who's competing to give away the most instead of possess the most.

I think the reason people suggest anonymity as a morally positive or superior action is because this isn't in trade. You've given it away (as noted above) without having your name in etched letters on a building, without a desire for notoriety and not in trade of previous or in fact continuous poor deeds. Consider for example the controversy around Bezos' donations.

It is very similar in fact to tithing instead of the practice of having your name called out in service in front of everyone so you can later trade on that donation for social standing.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#468

Post by stormbrew »

aballoonaway wrote: post #439
mrosett wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many delis are Jewish. He's saying that whenever he sees buildings named after people, he's in a Jewish neighborhood. In context, it plays into nasty stereotypes about Jews being obsessed with money.

I don't think that was the meaning of the gp post. If you're traveling, names on buildings or businesses tend to reflect the population of that area. Thus, if you're in an area with a large Jewish population, you can expect to see buildings/businesses that reflect that too. Antisemitism is a real issue, but this is just not it. I am Jewish by the way, if that matters.

The post didn't say "when I see a lot of jewish names on buildings I know I'm in a Jewish neighborhood," it said "when I'm in a neighborhood with a lot of names on the buildings I know I'm in a Jewish neighborhood" (both paraphrases to keep the dogwhistly deli->jewish link clear). The implication that Jewish people are uniquely interested in showing off their money and status through naming rights donations seems pretty blatant to me.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#469

Post by white-flame »

davinic wrote: post #438
lordnacho wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the reduce the amount of donations greatly? Gotta think most people do it at least partly for recognition, otherwise there'd be nothing noteworthy about the article we're discussing.

We could also just tax the income used to make the donations at similar levels to prior top brackets and not depend on philanthropy as a means to fund public institutions or social safety nets.

That puts the decision on where to put public good will and non-profitable money sinks solely into the machine of government bureaucracy, which I don't think would be very effective.

Currently we incentivize private individual donations, and that lets a lot of things happen quickly and without the requirement of soliciting the permission of a bottlenecked council for anything to happen.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#470

Post by vasco »

ebg13 wrote: post #380
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…

Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.

He did not start with everything.
Post reply on HN