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

541–550 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#541

Post by dropit_sphere »

superhuzza wrote: post #535
wolfhumble wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matthew 6, 1-4 (NIV): 1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do…

It's kind of sad how it's framed in those passages - Give in secret, or God will notice and hold back some of those heavenly rewards. As if the whole thing is just a karmic ponzi scheme.

Milk before meat.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#542

Post by headmelted »

It’s true of him regardless, but as someone from Northern Ireland, Chuck Feeney is a freaking hero.

I don’t have much to add that hasn’t been said already, but his donations - right up to the last - have made genuine and lasting differences in the hearts and minds of kids growing up here and I doubt even he knows all the good that’s come of what he did in this place.

I don’t want to ramble on because it’ll end up sounding like a eulogy but he’s done an incredible thing for our people and we’re incredibly grateful for it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#543

Post by Guthur »

wolfhumble wrote: post #520
phaus wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if it was the case for Chuck, but a small percentage Christians strongly believe that charity should be anonymous because it actually says as much in the bible. I'm not a Christian myself and definitely not rich at all, but I do prefer anonymous donations.

Matthew 6, 1-4 (NIV): 1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do…

And Islam has similar, one of people that will be given shade on the day of judgement.

“…A man who gives in charity and hides it, such that his left hand does not know what his right hand gives in charity; and a man who remembered Allah in private and so his eyes shed tears.” (Abu Hurairah & collected in Saheeh al-Bukhari (English trans.) vol.1, p.356, no.629 & Saheeh Muslim (English trans.) vol.2, p.493, no.2248)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#544

Post by exclipy »

settrans wrote: post #261
bedhead wrote: post #240

I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it’s this dynastic wealth that I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are similarly off-putting, as they are…

An Open Letter from Economists on the Estate Tax To whom it may concern: Spend your money on riotous living – no tax; leave your money to your children – the tax collector gets paid first. That is the message sent by the estate tax. It is a bad message and the estate tax is a bad tax. The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth. It discourages saving a…

Why should wealth be taxed? Because inequality is a bad thing and society would be better with less of it. Inequality is bad because the marginal utility of $100 to a billionaire is nothing, but to the homeless it is everything. Egregious inequality is an inefficient distribution of humanity's collective wealth.

Wasteful spending should also be taxed. There is no dichotomy. Yes please, put tax on carbon, on plastic, on all the other things that are bad for society. Ideally the most wasteful spenders should be taxed the most - the ten-millionth dollar someone spends on a carbon-emitting activity should be taxed at 90%.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#545

Post by chki »

mstratman wrote: post #341
jakeva wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have to say how much stuff you owe based on your income each year? Or that you have to keep your sidewalk clear of snow each winter? Or that you can't just leave your car wherever you want? What about amassing as much stuff as possible selling controlled substances and brokering crime? If you want society completely out of your business, you're going to have a hard time.

Limits on property ownership are a very different topic than taxation or crime. They are treated fundamentally different in law, economics, and philosophy.

Taxation is basically a limit of property ownership. The inheritance tax comes to mind (also an estate tax although those are not well established everywhere in the world) but also income-taxation limits what you can earn as a person and therefore what you can own.

And taxation is also not the only parallel one could draw. For example, limits on the usage of you property is also highly regulated in various ways. Usage and ownership are very closely related.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#546

Post by jopsen »

sandgiant wrote: post #323
pyronik19 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want society out of my business... if I want to give it away that's my choice.. if I want my kids to live like kings that's also my choice.

Good luck doing business without society.

On the upside: software would have no bugs :D

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#547

Post by winston_smith »

sjwright wrote: post #488
winston_smith wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extreme concentrations of wealth should already be heavily and unavoidably taxed Unfortunately, government is already the most extreme concentration of wealth in the history of mankind, spending $8 trillion dollars a year in the USA alone, of which $1 trillion (that's 1,000 billionaire fortunes, or bankrupting Jeff Bezos 5x over, every year) goes straight to the military.

But Government is owned by its people, who are effectively shareholders of a corporation.

That's a good analogy, and explains how we ended up with banana republics. They were just hostile takeovers of competing companies in Central America, leveraging our superior military assets. When you phrase it in those terms, Jeff Bezos looks much more like David than Goliath.

And it's why I want government to use its monopoly on violence to stick to keeping the peace, and create an environment where actual companies can compete without violence.

Because when the men with bombs also own the means of production, they do whatever they want, and you get mountains of skulls.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#548

Post by chmod775 »

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.

Even if you'd like to pretend there is none, it doesn't change the fact that giving for the sake of giving versus giving for the sake of recognition are different things.

Giving anonymously can be a way for the giver to prove to themselves what kind of person they are.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#550

Post by ryan93 »

conception wrote: post #464
dageshi wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s wrong to own your own business longer than conception deems necessary?
Post reply on HN