I guarantee you the $8 billion he gave away was better spent than whatever the government spends multiples of that on every day. And that’s why allowing private people to amass large wealth is useful to society.
> 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.
Embodies the antithesis of most billionaires, some of whom abuse the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) to cheat the US govt (and other US taxpayers) by not paying their fair share. Why pay taxes when you can promise something in the distant future and get a tax dodge now?
A DAF is not promising to give in the future: the shares are given immediately to a charity and must be donated at a certain minimum rate to other recipient charities.
A DAF has the same tax status as a charitable foundation you create but without the organizational overhead or potential abuses.
Have you used a DAF before? Shares actually do not have to be given to a specific charity when using one, at least not what most people would consider a "charity" when they use it colloquially -- this first charity is there mostly for bookkeeping. You are correct that DAF contributions are considered charitable donations in the year they are made, however.
I wonder what personality you have to have in order to acquire 8 billion and to give it all away. It must be a mix between a ruthless businessman, and mother Theresa. Never met anyone like that.
Past a certain point a lot of business execs are in it for the achievement itself and don’t know how to stop. Sort of like an athlete who is past their prime but refuses to retire. They aren’t in the game for the money but.. for the game.
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.
My first look revealed nothing so heinous, care to share some details? I'm not sure I'd consider this guy part of the billionaire class if he, according to TFA, was living as a renter in SF and didn't own a car, and of course had already given away all of his business assets 40 years ago.
Personally I don't believe in effective altruism, however it sounds like Mr. Feeney lived this philosophy much better than Sam Bankman Fried ever did, without attracting attention. May he rest in peace.
Effective altruists are most commonly donating to specific relatively high-evidence causes in low-income countries or much more speculative existential risk causes. Donations such as his donations to Carneggie Mellon University are an example of donations that is not common among effective altruists.
They're kind of missing the most important point of altruism being "effective". It's not that the recipient is effective with the money, it's that the net value of one's altruism is higher if you work and make alot of money and give it to donors rather than if you just did the work that the donors are doing. This is only applicable for those earning more than the people doing the work within the recipient organization of course.
It was amazing how much attention SBF got for saying he'd donate a lot of money someday. I don't think he made any actual donation or formal commitment.
> Feeney was a proponent of “Giving While Living,” believing he could make more of a difference in causes he cared about while he was alive, rather than setting up a foundation after he died, according to the Atlantic Philanthropies.
> “It’s much more fun to give while you are alive than to give when you are dead.”
I think the single most important aspect of Chuck Feeney's philanthropy was that it was done quietly, often in secret. He had already secretely given away much of his money before he was outed.
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.
You really can't "secretly" give away 100m dollars. You just hope they don't dig deep enough and try to uncover you. But 100m gives a lot of attention to muck rackers.
>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).
Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. 10% of one's earnings is extremely difficult if you make $20K a year, while if you make 10 million a year, 10% is barely noticeable.
I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. It might increase hardship in a poor person, or increase inconvenience in a richer person. There is no “right” amount. The fact that people are willing and able to give any significant amount of their wealth to improve the world is cause for celebration.
> I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level.
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.
I agree that the utility of money is nonlinear. However, donating $100 million of $1 billion income seems pretty not insignificant to me. Like, it’s significant enough that they’d probably want to make sure it’s spent wisely. Also, I don’t imagine many people with that kind of income will see it consistently. Debating the significance of 10% seems philosophical and academic. Talking a billionaire out of donating $100 million because it’s not enough would be counterproductive.
> 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle.
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.
> 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.
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?
"Suffering" charity is also often unsustainable, hurting the people who depend on the charity in the long run. It can even be a mental disease; some people get a dopamine boost by giving money to others at the expense of their basic welfare. Not saying it is the case here, I'm just supporting your argument.
No, I don't subscribe Mother Teresa's unfortunate philosophy. I'm pointing out that Objectivists going "Oooh Bill Gates gave away $100M, what a wonderful guy" should be smacked good and hard with a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Giving $100M was trivial for him to do.
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.
What a legacy. I watched an excellent documentary on this man a few years back[0]. He donated massive sums of money (up to $1 billion) to third level institutions in Ireland, all on the condition of anonymity. I would love to see an assessment of the return that this investment had on Ireland and the world.
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.
In my opinion, Feeney had a massive impact on Ireland with his contributions. A great example of what it means to give back.
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.
I'm amazed by people I have never heard of that made billions of dollars doing something that seems boring/simple like selling things in an airport. Yet, I work my ass off and had a hard time getting to 20k/month in my software business.
What I really like about him is that he didn't use a tax shelter. He also 'gave' money to the government that he otherwise could have used towards his recipients more aggressively.
53 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadDo you mean private people who give it all away, from your first sentence?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> 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.
Really insightful and from all accounts Chuck was a rare combination of both shrewd and immensely kind…
> “It’s much more fun to give while you are alive than to give when you are dead.”
Words to live by.
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.
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcjxe8slYI
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 the unicorn software riches that are uncommon.