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

691–700 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#691

Post by ashton314 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #607
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…

Why praise sacrifice at all? Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal. Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

This is a very utilitarian view, and it’s only considering the economic aspect at that. I’m not trying to argue that you’re wrong—I just want to suggest that there are other ways of looking at sacrifice that lead to the opposite conclusion.

Giving to help someone worse-off than you—ideally—engenders a feeling of gratitude and humility that makes our society a better place. Experiencing a greater sense of gratitude can help more than just money: gratitude helps one keep a positive mental outlook and can carry one through difficult times.

As a man of faith myself, I believe in divine blessings—both during and after this life—for sacrifice and generosity. That’s not my motivation for doing good, but I do believe that sacrifice does make a better community and a happier individual.

Now, as for the limit case of being utterly destitute (e.g. $25 to their name), a wise man once said “it is not requisite that you run faster than you have strength”—looking after yourself is noble, provided you continue to do what you can.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#692

Post by pckhoi »

paulpauper wrote: post #437

An even faster way would have been for him to create a website , for example, www.claimmymoney.com and allow people to put in requests for donations, for any reason, that he would either honor or decline. There would probably have to be ID verification and other system in place to try to prevent people from abusing it. Given how so many Americans are living below poverty or in poverty or having expenses, he would hav…

This method would limit benefactors to only those who have access to the internet and a way to receive money online. Most of the third world country population wouldn't fit into this category.

And you can't be solving big systematic problems and bring about societal change by working with individual cases. This is like fighting fire when you should have made the building fireproof in the first place.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#693

Post by woofie11 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #325
woofie11 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I'd recommend just giving as directly as you can. Right now, I ordered remote teaching equipment for teachers in my community. You can too. Identify people doing good important things, and give them money to do it. Especially if you give resources to volunteers doing genuinely good work in your community, it has a huge multiplier effect.

There's something to be said for giving to one-off opportunities that you're directly aware of, and that are genuinely underserved by others; this can have some very real impact. But such cases are rare, and limited in scale. The basic benchmark of just donating to save people in very poor countries from malaria and the like is very hard to beat.

Here's a suggestion: Make some friends internationally, including in very poor countries. You'll find countless such opportunities.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#694

Post by hansvm »

phs318u wrote: post #678
hansvm wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really; taxation is compulsory. If you steal everything I own and distribute it to try to improve other people's lives, I don't suddenly have any kind of charitable moral high ground because of where my money went, and neither would I be complicit if it were used to hire puppy hitmen or whatever evildoers like to do these days. The end effect is similar, but intent matters.

I agree that intent matters, but insofar as a state governs with the consent of a majority (leaving aside questions of whether that consent is real), then taxation (incl. the level of taxation and its distribution e.g. welfare vs warfare) represents a broadly agreed mechanism of the state to provide the kind of safety net that OP described as levels 2 and 1. Personally, I live in such a state (not the US), that has a…

IMO then the people happy to contribute to such a system would mostly fall under 1/2 (under the assumption that one's motivations are altruistic and not centered on the communal benefits they also receive), but the people who aren't happy to contribute would not qualify (at least, not via their taxes alone -- there might be other reasons for rejecting taxes, and they might contribute elsewhere in a way that still puts them in the 1/2 category).

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#695

Post by Retric »

Daishiman wrote: post #688
winter_blue wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, you actually do have a good point... I guess people are uncomfortable with directly acknowledging that social programs are funded by "donations" that are taken by force (i.e. taxes).

They're not "donations". They're taxes, period. There's no moral benefit to paying them in the same way there's no moral benefit to obeying traffic laws. It's not a charity as it's not voluntary. It's the cost of playing the game.

I would argue there is a moral obligation to obeying traffic laws.

Historically, most societies considered maintaining social order as a moral obligation. Guest Rights and Obligations etc seem to disappear as society and governments became more effective. That’s somehow translated into the idea that not paying taxes is somehow perfectly ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitium

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#696

Post by simula67 »

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…

Is Chuck Feeney Jewish?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#697

Post by laingc »

stormbrew wrote: post #468
aballoonaway wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pre…

Ok, interesting. I would usually be willing to give much more benefit of the doubt, but given how unnecessary the comment seemed to the rest of the post, I guess the obvious conclusion is a dog whistle.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#698

Post by olivermarks »

bena wrote: post #649
olivermarks wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd actually bothered to read the two 'spam' links as you called them you would understand the point I was making. Link one: FT oped by Gates published today about Covid19 Vaccines Link Two: Article about Gates rapidly growing fortune and how difficult it is for people as rich as he is to give away money.

And what do either of those have to do with Freeney's opinion on Gates? We're not going to try and guess what you're thinking, you have to tell us.

'We'????

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#700

Post by andersonvom »

Mandatum wrote: post #669
niij wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same could be said about people who want to take other's money away. People are spend-thrifts enough as it is, a wealth tax just dis-incentivizes being fiscally responsible.

How about a wealth tax on everything above $10MM? Suddenly 99% of the world is no longer discouraged from being fiscally responsible. Do I really care if a billionaire is fiscally irresponsible? Maybe for a single generation. After that, we're good.

This is already how things work in the US: you only need to file if your estate is greater than 11.5MM as of 2020 [1].

"As a result, only about 2,000 estates per year in the US are currently liable for federal estate tax." [2]

The argument that it "discourages living frugally" is just complete nonsense.

[1]: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_Sta...

Post reply on HN