Chuck Feeney: a billionaire who gave it all away(irishtimes.com)
irishtimes.com
Chuck Feeney: a billionaire who gave it all away
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/chuck-feeney-the-billionaire-who-gave-it-all-away-1.3413084
99 comments
Seems he outed himself in a New York Times article [0] according to Wikipedia. That's if you're referring to that incident
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney#Duty-Free_Shoppers"To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber"
:(
:(
Ugh - Bloomberg buys Businessweek and then throws all of the content behind a paywall.
Here's a better link: https://web.archive.org/web/20140514054305/http://www.busine...
Here's a better link: https://web.archive.org/web/20140514054305/http://www.busine...
You could always have bought the content, and given it away for free. People need to eat and pay the rent yo.
I am fully supportive of anyone who wants to Kickstart content corpus purchases and then give that to the Internet Archive for WayBack inclusion.
I am fully supportive of anyone who wants to Kickstart content corpus purchases and then give that to the Internet Archive for WayBack inclusion.
People complain about ads on a website and how they have to use an ad-blocker and then the complain when they put stuff behind a paywall. Can't have it both ways, people deserve to be paid for good journalism.
To be honest, those who use ad blockers most likely are not the target audience for an ad payer.
Popup ad blocking is not the problem. There's no need for popup ads at all - its a scummy practice.
If anyone is looking for a documentary RTE (Irish broadcaster) did one a few years ago and it was decent.
The institute he set up Atlantic Philanthropies has very recently closed it's door in Ireland having completed its mission.
Ah found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI
The institute he set up Atlantic Philanthropies has very recently closed it's door in Ireland having completed its mission.
Ah found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI
The book on Feeney, "The Billionaire Who Wasn't", is great. Better than I expected going on. The man is fascinating.
Why would you say there aren't more people like him?
Different people are motivated by different things (ie what gets you up in the morning may be different than what gets me up). Some do it out of inherent passion for whatever art they are pursuing, some to prove a point to others, some to prove a point to themselves. Some believe they have an obligation to humanity, others to just their family. Not my place to determine who is right in this. Whatever motivates these people often results in me being a net beneficiary of whatever they built for society that made them billionaires.
In 1996, Feeney and a partner sold their stakes in DFS to the French luxury conglomerate Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy (LVMH). Miller opposed the sale, and before a presumptive lawsuit could reveal that Feeney's stake was owned not in fact by him but by The Atlantic Philanthropies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney
Wow what a man
[deleted]
Incredible. There are far too few people like this guy in the world.
Does anyone know what it was about the Bahamas that made the it so attractive for filing the paperwork?
It's a tax haven with more bureaucratic secrecy than taxes: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060516/why-bahamas-...
Does anyone know the reasoning behind why there are Duty Free shops when entering an International airport (as a final destination)?
[deleted]
This is exactly why I believe income tax is stupid. It's people like this who should be lifted up on our shoulders by our economic system and taxed 0%. They are the real leaders of us all. A high consumption tax that punishes buying stupid things like super cars and private yachts would help do this.
“the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor” - what a great thing to say. Where are these great men?
“the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor” - what a great thing to say. Where are these great men?
Are you familiar with the term "progressive taxes"?
Consumption tax is the same for multimillionaires and for people who have 3 part time jobs and struggle to feed their family.
Then, imagine that you put a massive consumption tax for cards, for instance. What happens when the car of the 3 jobs guy is broken?
Also, how do you decide which products are the products that rich people buy and which are the products for "the poor"?
Consumption tax is the same for multimillionaires and for people who have 3 part time jobs and struggle to feed their family.
Then, imagine that you put a massive consumption tax for cards, for instance. What happens when the car of the 3 jobs guy is broken?
Also, how do you decide which products are the products that rich people buy and which are the products for "the poor"?
Also, how do you decide which products are the products that rich people buy and which are the products for "the poor"?
Congress did that by price - specifically, by imposing a 10% Luxury Tax cars over $30k.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#Luxury_tax_in_the_U...
Congress did that by price - specifically, by imposing a 10% Luxury Tax cars over $30k.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#Luxury_tax_in_the_U...
Not agreeing with OP but have studied this and want to provide color to it. Most of the proposals I've seen that promote a consumption tax deal with that by giving cash back to everyone in the form of refundable tax credits or block grants (yearly or monthly). They would figure out what the middle income person / family would consume, tie that to the CPI for those (breads, meats, consumables) and come up with the refundable tax credit amount to cover that persons estimated consumption tax.
Why would you let them accumulate an unreasonable amount of wealth if you then expect them to give it back to poor people? Why not limit the wealth in the first place to ensure that everyone get its share?
And do you really expect every millionaire / billionaire to do this? I'm afraid numbers are against you, that's why this appears in a newspaper: it's a rare event.
Finally, why let a few rich guys decide where the money goes? I think it would be better if the money was given to the government, so that the people can decide where the money will be useful. I'm not sure all of this guy's money went to good causes (you can check his Wikipedia page).
And do you really expect every millionaire / billionaire to do this? I'm afraid numbers are against you, that's why this appears in a newspaper: it's a rare event.
Finally, why let a few rich guys decide where the money goes? I think it would be better if the money was given to the government, so that the people can decide where the money will be useful. I'm not sure all of this guy's money went to good causes (you can check his Wikipedia page).
Not that I think low taxation would be a net transfer to the poor, but many disagree with how the government spends tax money.
> Not that I think low taxation would be a net transfer to the poor, but many disagree with how the government spends tax money.
Pretty sure a worker at Mercedes or at VW will oppose free of cost public transit in Germany. I have met old people whose only income is their Social Security check advocate for "small government" that does away with all the safety nets in the US.
Of course, we disagree with how governments spend money. If we all agreed, we wouldn't need a government. All in all, a charity cannot replace government safety net.
Pretty sure a worker at Mercedes or at VW will oppose free of cost public transit in Germany. I have met old people whose only income is their Social Security check advocate for "small government" that does away with all the safety nets in the US.
Of course, we disagree with how governments spend money. If we all agreed, we wouldn't need a government. All in all, a charity cannot replace government safety net.
The reverse is also (somewhat) true - this is at least part of the reason that governments effectively subsidize charitable donations, usually through some sort of tax exemption / deduction. It's a form of outsourcing aid.
"many disagree with how the government spends tax money"
I suppose that's as good definition of democracy as any.
The whole purpose of democratic governance is to deal with a political situation where most people disagree.
I suppose that's as good definition of democracy as any.
The whole purpose of democratic governance is to deal with a political situation where most people disagree.
> Why would you let them accumulate an unreasonable amount of wealth
It's sad to see many people cheering at "philanthropist" billionaires while thousands or millions of unknowns people in the world ran their business while letting go of the opportunity to become rich by paying fair wages, or not patenting drugs or technologies or not adopting other aggressive tactics like cornering markets & so on.
It's sad to see many people cheering at "philanthropist" billionaires while thousands or millions of unknowns people in the world ran their business while letting go of the opportunity to become rich by paying fair wages, or not patenting drugs or technologies or not adopting other aggressive tactics like cornering markets & so on.
[deleted]
Imagine if you'd limited Elon Musk's PayPal wealth with such confiscation taxes. We'd literally have no SpaceX or Tesla. Why should society put so much trust that politicians can allocate resources in a fair and economically beneficial manner?
We'd certainly have no SpaceX if the government didn't have a large budget for subsidising space companies and paying for their services (which was an order of magnitude larger again during the Space Race when there wasn't any market for any kind of space launch).
As far as I'm aware, Musk can and does pay tax on his earnings
As far as I'm aware, Musk can and does pay tax on his earnings
I guess that's why Musk is paying big moneys to political campaigns of McCain and others to win legislative favors and maintain good relation with gov't.
SpaceX's development money was paid by NASA in exchange for launches, not subsidies. There's a big difference between the two.
It's something of a moot point when I'm really arguing NASA wouldn't exist to pay for launches without tax dollars, but the non-binding launch contracts were structured like a research subsidy with many of the payments being associated with hitting r&d milestones rather than with an obligation to actually render services, and encouragement to go and find other customers. Nothing unusual about that: it's the way the space industry works.
That's not a subsidy. That's progress payments. Many industries other than space have progress payments.
In fact you see some private contracts which are exactly like that NASA contract: "We want to pay you to create a much cheaper product than we can already buy, and here are some early progress payments so you don't have to finance it yourself."
You may think this is a moot point, that's totally fine. The difference between subsidies or not is important to others.
In fact you see some private contracts which are exactly like that NASA contract: "We want to pay you to create a much cheaper product than we can already buy, and here are some early progress payments so you don't have to finance it yourself."
You may think this is a moot point, that's totally fine. The difference between subsidies or not is important to others.
You'll find private sector contracts which pay in instalments for hitting milestones, but not ones which give companies hundreds of millions of non-reimbursable research dollars without the obligation to buy or sell any actual services or transfer IP or equity. Phase I of COTS was a series of grants for hitting planning milestones with a right to terminate before Phase II. The procurement contracts were separate and subsequent to this.
But how many Elon Musks did we miss because some people didn't get the opportunity to try their ideas due to lack of ressources ?
Did musk really come up with all these ideas? He's the paypal guy, its rocket engineers doing all the rest.
He is the one who ask the right questions.
Yes, there are smarter people than him but how many of those people have Vision he has plus the ability to execute it?
Yes, there are smarter people than him but how many of those people have Vision he has plus the ability to execute it?
He is also Chief Engineer. So yes, he is coming up with these ideas.
and are you saying that gov't would be better at allocating resources to those with greater talents, and/or ideas that would succeed?
[deleted]
Why would you let them accumulate an unreasonable amount of wealth if you then expect them to give it back to poor people? Why not limit the wealth in the first place to ensure that everyone get its share?
My thoughts on this change quite often, but if we were in a situation where we had a hard limit on wealth I think there should still be the chance to accumulate it, and the people who did the best that year get an award for it. Just to keep the incentive there. It's not like someone who has over 100 million in the bank is putting in the effort just because they want more things.
My thoughts on this change quite often, but if we were in a situation where we had a hard limit on wealth I think there should still be the chance to accumulate it, and the people who did the best that year get an award for it. Just to keep the incentive there. It's not like someone who has over 100 million in the bank is putting in the effort just because they want more things.
This isn't how human society works. If you don't want to live in a world where individuals with considerably more ambition and intelligence than you who have built industries and consolidated empires and have been rewarded for doing so, get off your computer built by people who accumulated wealth and funded by people with wealth built from other inventions built and funded by wealthy individuals before that and return to the jungle to lick flies and learn what actual poverty is before you get eaten by something.
In human history, when people like you attempt to force wealthy individuals to hand over their wealth, the country stagnates, and the ambition and intelligence move to other nations that have better social systems built by ambitious men, and the nation gradually rises.
Finally, why do you think "the people" or the government is an efficient instrument for ensuring charitable interests are met? That's really silly
In human history, when people like you attempt to force wealthy individuals to hand over their wealth, the country stagnates, and the ambition and intelligence move to other nations that have better social systems built by ambitious men, and the nation gradually rises.
Finally, why do you think "the people" or the government is an efficient instrument for ensuring charitable interests are met? That's really silly
Do me a big favor and don't use any publicly funded or or tax payer subsidized utility or service ever again. Don't drive on roads, don't take public transit, don't ever call the police, don't do business with anyone with a government job or government contract, don't use products or medicines that have resulted from basic research at public universities or NASA, don't use public schools or libraries, if you have a degree from a public institution give it back or pay the difference. Im sure with all your ambition and intelligence you will make due just fine though.
The rest of us here aren't exactly looking for handouts; on average I'd say HNs do pretty well. However we can appreciate the many ways income tax helps support a functioning society.
The rest of us here aren't exactly looking for handouts; on average I'd say HNs do pretty well. However we can appreciate the many ways income tax helps support a functioning society.
Your point is not relevant to what I am arguing.
High income and high estate taxes exist in the same world as wealth and I think they should be higher than they are now - the wealthy use considerably higher resources than the rest of society, and it requires extreme stability in society to even keep and maintain wealth which people in the US take for granted.
The comment did not say anything of that nature, he's describing a hard cap on wealth.. what would that number be? 1 million? 5? - "limit[ing] the wealth in the first place to ensure that everyone get its share" - this is the ignorance of a mob with torches.
Phones to make 911 calls from and cars for the police to drive over in were built by American entrepreneurs who became wealthy. It's part of the system. They did not take value out of society to become rich at it's expense - they were not perfect, but there was a significant net gain. If Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg is forced to liquidate 99% of their ownership in their company tomorrow because the guy above me thinks "I want more money, it's not fair he has more than me" to himself and builds a set of quasi-logical ideals around that and those ideas take root, then we begin declining as a society. The system always needs to be re-balanced and kept in check, but having a maximum bank account is not the answer.
High income and high estate taxes exist in the same world as wealth and I think they should be higher than they are now - the wealthy use considerably higher resources than the rest of society, and it requires extreme stability in society to even keep and maintain wealth which people in the US take for granted.
The comment did not say anything of that nature, he's describing a hard cap on wealth.. what would that number be? 1 million? 5? - "limit[ing] the wealth in the first place to ensure that everyone get its share" - this is the ignorance of a mob with torches.
Phones to make 911 calls from and cars for the police to drive over in were built by American entrepreneurs who became wealthy. It's part of the system. They did not take value out of society to become rich at it's expense - they were not perfect, but there was a significant net gain. If Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg is forced to liquidate 99% of their ownership in their company tomorrow because the guy above me thinks "I want more money, it's not fair he has more than me" to himself and builds a set of quasi-logical ideals around that and those ideas take root, then we begin declining as a society. The system always needs to be re-balanced and kept in check, but having a maximum bank account is not the answer.
I think we were just not on the same page with regard to OP's comment: "limit wealth"
You interpreted this as "hard limit", I assumed they just meant limit using tiered tax brackets (i.e. status quo). And, I assumed this is what you assumed.
The top-level comment in this thread advocates zero income tax; it's clear now this is not a position you are defending. My bad.
That said, I fixed your original comment...
"If you don't want to be a machine in multiverse where some AI has considerably more resources, training examples, and optimizations than you... with accounts holding more Ether and funded by AI who gamed ICOs... and something something something, dark side... then power down"
You interpreted this as "hard limit", I assumed they just meant limit using tiered tax brackets (i.e. status quo). And, I assumed this is what you assumed.
The top-level comment in this thread advocates zero income tax; it's clear now this is not a position you are defending. My bad.
That said, I fixed your original comment...
"If you don't want to be a machine in multiverse where some AI has considerably more resources, training examples, and optimizations than you... with accounts holding more Ether and funded by AI who gamed ICOs... and something something something, dark side... then power down"
Communism was tried and it did not work well. Capitalism is bad but communism is worse. Why let a few politicians decide where the money goes?
Communism hasn't every really happened. What we've had are bizarre dictatorships veiled in communist language that tap the masses discontent as a source of support, but these haven't resulted in communist states. Communism, in theory, comes after capitalism gets bad, but you need capitalism to come before it, otherwise you get the Soviet Union and China which try to be communist states without being industrialized states first.
[deleted]
In the U.S. you can deduct your charitable contributions (up to 50% of your income) to not have income tax on that money.
Not impressed. Foundations are just another way to avoid taxes for some people, especially when their finances are managed from offshore accounts in countries like the Bahamas. Often, the foundations pay their "benefactors" a salary and "donate" just enough property and resources for the "benefactors" to get by, lavishly. [1]
If you want to do good, donate your company to your employees.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC9jTqhJBh4
If you want to do good, donate your company to your employees.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC9jTqhJBh4
Did you read the article? He's given away everything and the Foundation is disbanding.
Yup. Still not impressed.
Him having to go to the Bahamas to sign everything away means he profited a lot from tax "optimization".
Clear enough?
Him having to go to the Bahamas to sign everything away means he profited a lot from tax "optimization".
Clear enough?
No its not clear enough actually, the tax benefits could have also been passed on, so please provide supporting evidence of his personal profit. Otherwise we can continue to assume you are a paranoid skeptic.
Do you have any basis for that belief? It seems equally plausible that he wanted as much as possible going to the foundation in order to optimize its philanthropic potential.
Basis one, served: https://www.economist.com/node/9903943
Bases N, served. https://www.google.com/search?q=chuck+feeney+tax+evasion
Peruse at leisure.
Bases N, served. https://www.google.com/search?q=chuck+feeney+tax+evasion
Peruse at leisure.
I feel like you’re trying to equate avoiding taxes with self enrichment. That’s true if you avoid taxes to then keep the money. But if you avoid taxes by giving everything to charity, that’s not avoiding taxes anymore: those are deductibles for a reason!
The question is: did he end up keeping more money now, than he would have, had he just kept everything and paid the due taxes? The article seems to suggest that, no, he didn’t.
> “Chuck hates taxes. He believes people can do more with money than governments can,”
Yeah, join the club.
The question is: did he end up keeping more money now, than he would have, had he just kept everything and paid the due taxes? The article seems to suggest that, no, he didn’t.
> “Chuck hates taxes. He believes people can do more with money than governments can,”
Yeah, join the club.
For a long time he withheld taxation money that could have gone to education and infrastructure. The fact that he gave money away when it was most convenient to him WHILE NORMAL PEOPLE HAD TO PAY EVERY TIME, ON TIME, does not excuse his despicable behavior.
That's kind of like saying taking a pay cut or working part time is tax avoidance. "Normal people" can also avoid taxes by giving their income to charity if they want.
From reading your posts it seems like you jumped to a conclusion without understanding the situation.
From reading your posts it seems like you jumped to a conclusion without understanding the situation.
Except that I never said taking a pay cut or working part time were tax avoidance. Also, normal people don't usually set up tax-exempt foundations that hire them as "board members" to "give their money away".
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis in HN comments. It's basically yelling, and the site guidelines ask you not to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I swear that someone could cure cancer and there would be some asshole on the internet who would find a reason to shit all over that person.
Come on, dude. At least read the fscking article.
I assume you’re volunteering to be the first person in history who pays more taxes than they have to?
I assume you’re volunteering to be the first person in history who pays more taxes than they have to?
I'm sorry he doesn't live up to your expectations.
He literally made his money via duty-free shopping, i.e. his profits come through tax avoidance.
Great that he gave away his billions to people he decided worthy; a shame he didn't let democratically controlled governments decide.
Great that he gave away his billions to people he decided worthy; a shame he didn't let democratically controlled governments decide.
A lot of people feel that democratically controlled governments don't handle funds very well.
A lot of people?
Or, the few people who have accrued enough wealth that they no longer need government support - and can afford to purchase a large amount of available public messaging to say this.
I find it literally impossible that a single person's decision could be a better way of allocating funds than a (proportional) government's decision.
Or, the few people who have accrued enough wealth that they no longer need government support - and can afford to purchase a large amount of available public messaging to say this.
I find it literally impossible that a single person's decision could be a better way of allocating funds than a (proportional) government's decision.
Then those people should choose to not accumulate wealth under governance systems that they don't agree with.
a tax avoidance scheme that those democratically elected governments aid and abet.
Ask any 40 something American professional who has been contributing to Social Security their entire career knowing that the system will be completely insolvent when it's their time to use the benefit about government's ability to decide how to spend money.
Why would you do this?
Why not! You live, then you die, none of us get to take it with us.
Why make money in the first place then.
Making money is itself a form of giving to the world. Assuming you aren't doing something illegal or something, you make money by providing goods or services that people value more than money - otherwise, they wouldn't give you money for those goods and services.
You're literally creating value. You're then capturing some (but not all!) of that value you created, and rather than doing what some people do (use that value only for yourself), you're giving that value to charity.
You're literally creating value. You're then capturing some (but not all!) of that value you created, and rather than doing what some people do (use that value only for yourself), you're giving that value to charity.
Why make money in the first place then.
That is the wrong line of logic. Many people who have a lot of money are/were not interested in making money beyond what it would take them to have a decent life.
They never made money. They made something else and that something, by consequence, generated a lot of money. For some of these guys the amount of wealth created satisfied a different need, perhaps some measure of impact, but it was never about accumulating wealth in the first place.
That is the wrong line of logic. Many people who have a lot of money are/were not interested in making money beyond what it would take them to have a decent life.
They never made money. They made something else and that something, by consequence, generated a lot of money. For some of these guys the amount of wealth created satisfied a different need, perhaps some measure of impact, but it was never about accumulating wealth in the first place.
Because he got to help a lot of people, that's the best you can hope for in the end.
So you can spend it. Like, for example, on charitable causes.
Why not work for charitable causes directly?
His multiplier effect was higher by making tons of money and then giving it away, rather than working for charitable causes directly.
For example, take two simplified cases:
1. He makes a lot of money, and as a direct result of his fortune and generosity, he can effect [1000 employees * 10 years] = 10,000 man-years of charity work
2. He works directly at a charitable institution and performs 30 direct man-years of charity work, but makes no appreciable amount of money to multiply his efforts
If you're interested in a better explanation of this with regard to charity, I would check out Singer's book "The Most Good You Can Do", which is an exploration on the theory of effective altruism.
For example, take two simplified cases:
1. He makes a lot of money, and as a direct result of his fortune and generosity, he can effect [1000 employees * 10 years] = 10,000 man-years of charity work
2. He works directly at a charitable institution and performs 30 direct man-years of charity work, but makes no appreciable amount of money to multiply his efforts
If you're interested in a better explanation of this with regard to charity, I would check out Singer's book "The Most Good You Can Do", which is an exploration on the theory of effective altruism.
Plus anyone making money is contributing to their work. A doctor saves lives in exchange for money. An entrepreneur solves small problems that thousands of individuals face.
Division of Labour.
That's like saying "If you work to buy a house and food, why don't just build it instead along with a garden in the back and not work?" To which the answer is it is cheaper to do what you are best at and sell the surplus to buy all the houses your new money can afford.
That's like saying "If you work to buy a house and food, why don't just build it instead along with a garden in the back and not work?" To which the answer is it is cheaper to do what you are best at and sell the surplus to buy all the houses your new money can afford.
I think I know what you are trying to say, but you are describing the idea of "competitive advantage" here.
You are correct, what I describe is "Comparative Advantage" not Division of Labour, although I would say CA is a result of a DL at a macro level.
How likely is that to do $8B worth of good for the charity?
Alright thank you, I'll give it a look.
Maybe he changed his perspective over the years?
Imagine having billions of dollars and all you can come up with is adding voice and video calling to a picture sharing app. I can't understand why anyone would do that, but giving away money is actually fun, though I can only imagine giving away billions...
As Chuck Feeney said once, it is their call what the rich do with their money, but they will get more satisfaction giving it when living than when dead. “Besides,” he added, “it’s a lot more fun.”
As Chuck Feeney said once, it is their call what the rich do with their money, but they will get more satisfaction giving it when living than when dead. “Besides,” he added, “it’s a lot more fun.”
Only other similar philanthropy I've ever seen - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-08/three-mys....