Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by quickpost | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

quickpost

He's getting 5% of $22 million each year to cover living expenses ($1.1million)?

Doesn't exactly sound like "living simply" to me.

View on HN

He's required to receive at least 5% of the trust's value as his annuity each year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_remainder_unitrust

Ahhh, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks!

Does the benefactor have to pay tax on that 5%? If not, this is an amazing deal for the benefactor!

If I am reading the Wikipedia article correctly (and if the article itself is correct), the benefactor does pay tax on that 5%.

However, if the OP had kept his startup in his own name, then at the time he sold it, he would have had to pay capital-gains tax on all of his profit, that year. (And then he would have been able to spend the remainder on whatever he wanted, that year.)

$1.1 million/year sounds like a lot, but he is living in an apartment in New York city.

edit: Oh, -4 on the mods. I'll make a note to put flashing lights around it the next time I use irony to comment on a man who thinks a $1.1m/yr income is "living simply".

Dude, the highest mean income in the most titsy of NY neighborhoods is only about $150K/year. $1.1 mil is a shit ton of money each year.

Not countering your central point really but I'd note that the distribution is pretty skewed[1], i.e. the 300k+ group is a plurality in some neighborhoods.

[1] http://envisioningdevelopment.net/map

I used the same source as you. Irregardless of the data my point was that 1.1 mil in income is a lot, no matter where you live in the world.

Upvoted you for a reasonable point.

But I want to subtract half a karma vote for the use of Irregardless. Shame!

$1.1 million a year tax free is alot - he could live lavish in Monaco with that!

it's not tax-free to him, check his post above.

It's certainly very altruistic, but not entirely, since he has saved himself a whole lot in taxes and guaranteed himself an income for life.

That was my first thought as well, but in reality, there's more available for whatever charity eventually gets the money. Granted, he could have donated it all outright, but there's something to be said for having some income so you can work on things you love, including giving back. I'm guessing that for someone like Derek, his time and expertise is more valuable than his money :)

It's not about altruism or lack of it. Nor ultimately even saving money in taxes. It's about having enough, so there's no point in owning more than you need.

He obviously has to live somewhere and eat, so it's only pragmatic to arrange that he will get what he needs but, I assume, not really much more.

Just having money doesn't mean he has to blow it.

Fair point. However, if that's the case, why not leave more of it in the trust - he's automatically "blowing" 35% of that 5% (350k+) in taxes every year.

EDIT: Here's the real answer - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=976759

Reply on news.ycombinator.com