Chuck Feeney has died
cnn.com
cnn.com
If I'm funding the Sean Luke Home for Distressed Kids, or publically giving $100M to, I dunno, the Red Cross, it's not really charity. It's buying a name for myself. The highest charity is giving where there is no quid pro quo at all. This means in secret. (Yes, I know, a public gift by the Bill Gates Foundation might have a chance at attracting other charity, so public charity could in some situations be positive. But it's still a lesser gift compared to Feeney).
Charity should also hurt. A poor woman giving $50 she could have used to eat, that hurts. The Bill Gates Foundation giving away $10M is barely noticed. The value of money is nonlinear. Feeney gave away all of his money, as if it were a burden and his duty was to relieve himself of it.
[Edit: I should have worded this better. I'm not a Mother Teresa style morality = pain person. But the value of money is highly nonlinear. I think that to be considered real charity, the amount of giving must be considered (nonlinearly) in context of the wealth of the individual. $50 is amazing from someone who is poor. $100M is practically nothing from someone who is superrich, and they should not be lionized for their trivial contribution by Objectivists.]
Were I as impressive a man as this. I am not. But I aspire to be.
Edit: this statement is terrible:
> In 2011, Feeney signed the “Giving Pledge,” a commitment started by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett that encourages America’s wealthiest families and individuals to dedicate their wealth to philanthropic endeavors.
This obfuscates the fact that Gates's Giving Pledge was inspired by what Feeney had done. Feeney didn't agree to live to Gates's principles, but the other way around.
>Charity should also hurt.
I'm not sure I agree. "the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need." I don't see the philiophical argument for significant sacrifice to be required. Charity isn't altruism. And if we're being pragmatic, 0.1% of a billionaire's riches means a lot more than half the riches of 1000 minimum wage workers. Even if the latter is much more altruistic.
Most religions that ask for tithes and offerings work in a similar vein. Tithe literally means "tenth" after all (as in,10% your wealth).
This is simply untrue. 10% of a $20K income is the difference between your baby having healthcare or not. 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. The value of money is nonlinear. And furthermore most religions (in the US) position the percentages as pretax, so wealthy people actually pay rather less in percentage tithing than poor people do.
If religions wanted people to donate to the degree they were capable, the percentage function would be exponential. If you make $20K you donate $200. If you make $1 billion you donate $950 million.
That seems obviously untrue: $100 million could hire a thousand employees at $100,000/year (I am ignoring payroll taxes and benefits). Hiring that many additional people to do one’s bidding would have a noticeable influence on one’s lifestyle, and losing that many would as well.
Hey, if I had $1 billion a year I would have teams of artisans, craftsmen, authors, poets, tailors and the like at my beck and call. My mansion would be a work of art. My parties would be experiences. I’d build a cathedral.
… there’s probably a reason that I don’t make a billion a year!
No, it’s not: regressive would be if the poor had to pay a larger percentage than the rich. They don’t. Progressive indicates that the rich must pay a larger percentage than the poor. Meanwhile, a flat fee would be the same number for everyone.
I get what you’re trying to say: folks’ utility functions may be different, and a rich man may possibly miss his 10% less than the poor man. But ‘regressive’ and ‘progressive’ have specific meanings in this context.
Your idea of charity appears to be about ensuring the charitable suffer, rather than about relieving suffering for recipients. That seems like exactly the opposite view than that which would make everyone better off: it discourages charitable giving, rather than encouraging it. Is that your aim?
So? Expecting altruism to the point of self-sacrifice is narcissistic and selfish. I can appreciate however why humans have evolved to foster altruistic attitudes. The problem is that people with less affable personality types often manipulate, abuse or control such altruism, which is dangerous, counterproductive and inhumane.
On institution benefited from the lion's share of this: University of Limerick. I recall the then-President of the university saying in an interview that he was under extreme pressure to reveal the source of investment as there was a significant drug problem in the city at the time and people were speculating it was the proceeds of crime! Another story that came out years after the fact was that he once invested millions in third level education in Ireland on the condition that the government match it, which they reluctantly did.
Take an example such as a multiplier effect of 5 times, that $1 billion created at least $5 billion of value at a minimum and second-order effects economically that are harder to measure over time.
> “It’s much more fun to give while you are alive than to give when you are dead.”
Words to live by.
Really insightful and from all accounts Chuck was a rare combination of both shrewd and immensely kind…
> As of 2016, he lived in a rented apartment in San Francisco, with remaining assets of $2 million.
> [I]n 1984, [he] secretly transferred his entire 38.75% stake in DFS, then worth about $500 million, to the foundation. Not even his business partners knew that he no longer personally owned any part of DFS. For years, Atlantic gave away money in secret, requiring recipients to not reveal the sources of their donations.
A DAF has the same tax status as a charitable foundation you create but without the organizational overhead or potential abuses.
Possible selection bias there: we hear about the loud ones, more than the ones secretly giving away money.
> Feeney gave away more than $8 billion in his lifetime.
Of course most of them also like to live very comfortably and spend it. I guess once the $$ has a B in it maybe it becomes essentially impossible to spend it all and the money a theoretical concept at best.
Good for him to give back in the most selfless way.
Imagine your software got you to $5B, you can give away $4B, but you can also continue to grow and become a semiconductor superpower.
It’s the unicorn software riches that are uncommon.
Do you mean private people who give it all away, from your first sentence?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...