5 ms·

Interesting that he is/was big on reducing his tax liability so that he could give away more.

gadders 13y ago
Seems fair enough to me. I believe there is also a link that countries have the lowest tax rates have the highest levels of philanthropy.
- ljf 13y ago
  Fair enough, but not something personally agree with - why should people go to lengths hiding the money they and their companies earn from the government, so that they can choose where it goes. If you don't agree with the way the government works or spends, then it's time to help change that through voting and engaging in politics. Otherwise only pet projects and passions get funded, while the daily bread and butter work of govt keeping the streets clean and cities functioning gets forgotten and sidelined. Just my 2pence
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    the daily bread and butter work of govt keeping the streets clean and cities functioning gets forgotten and sidelined. These functions are only a small portion of government spending - it's mostly just wealth redistribution. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_total http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_total
    - clicks 13y ago
      And that is a-okay with me. I say that because the term 'wealth redistribution' when it's used usually carries with it a loaded connotation, which I'm not sure if you meant to communicate across or not. It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution' programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day.
      - mseebach 13y ago
        > It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution' programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day. Many people disagree and believe that this end is much better served through charity than through (wasteful, bureaucratic, inherently un-personal) redistribution. Tax planning for the purpose of charity is just "putting your money where your mouth is".
        satellitecat 13y ago
        I'm not sure it actually is wasteful, though. Social Security in the US is supposed to have minuscule overhead. In Canada, even the government can't always be trusted to not give money to charity groups that are anti-gay -- individuals might find that a feature, not a bug, of the charity :P. Knowing an accountant, I know that many charities put barely any of their income towards the actual charity (the legal minimum is 2%.. two percent!). Breast cancer gets huge amounts of donations, while less glamourous, but more lethal cancers get much less. I know that if I were to hit hard times, I'd rather have something not too personal, rather than feeling beholden to random people, nice and generous as they may be. Plus, do we really want selfish people to keep the most money? :) Screw those people, give with the rest of us, with professionals deciding where the money goes, not random people's pet interests :P
      - Spooky23 13y ago
        Wealth redistribution is a term of art that has a meaning which isn't necessarily a negative. In general, the problems with these programs is that they create dependency, and cannot be cut. When rough times come around, the first thing to be slashed are the citizen facing (and often job impacting) functions like street cleaning, police patrols and staffing at the city clerk's office. As an example, in my US State, the Department of Transportation hasn't pruned trees and has reduced mowing at the roadside since 2009. The result? Traffic signs are obscured by branches (safety hazard), and the road drainage systems are going to be clogged by leaves and brush. This builds an implicit debt, as mowing grass and cutting trees is cheaper than rebuilding roads early and dealing with the human and financial costs of accidents. In the meantime, Medicaid spending automatically increases as much as 10-15% a year.
    - ljf 13y ago
      Wow, did not know the US spent so much on healthcare, considering that it is not free for all. In the UK we spend about 10% GDP and it's free for everyone. Different set ups I know, but seems crazy to spend more, and then ask people to spend loads on health insurance.
    - breakyerself 13y ago
      Yeah redistributing wealth to the top.
  - cmdkeen 13y ago
    Except "rich people trying to influence politics" is an easy attack line for those that disagree with the changes you are trying to make. Mr Feeney is clearly someone who prefers operating out of the limelight, which is the exact opposite of the kind of personality who can use money to drive political change. It also, in a very Carnegie fashion, shows the other way rich people can influence state spending. Offering money if the state does something (usually give money as well) in return. Carnegie used to give money for a town library if the town would pay for it's upkeep, Feeney offers money for universities and tech parks if the state chips in as well. Much better than running a nebulous "I think government should be like this" campaign.
  - AutoCorrect 13y ago
    ummm, maybe because they are the ones that EARNED the money, so they have a right to say where it goes?
    - auctiontheory 13y ago
      Would they have EARNED as much in a country without a government-provided legal system and financial system and infrastructure? Like, say, Somalia?
      - cobrausn 13y ago
        Please stop doing that. Our two options are not Statism and Somalia.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - ljf 13y ago
      Earning money needs a wealthy country to support you and your business. Why shouldn't you support the country that provided your wealth? And if your answer is that you will give to charity, then please answer the rest of my question above.
      - AutoCorrect 13y ago
        please enlighten me with your fully documented study supporting your conclusions. It does not take a wealthy country, it takes an individual willing to work hard and sacrifice. Anything else is just blame shifting. We do support the country that provides our wealth - we participate in the local economy. We give to charity. We provide a valuable service to the community. We help others in need. You seem to conflate paying taxes with supporting a country/region, when that is not the case.
        ljf 13y ago
        First I ask the same of you, and the answer to my question, where are the charities cleaning the streets or changing street lights? And good luck out side of the western world getting by with a hard working business owner to run any kind of high flying business. Good luck with the bribes you'll be paying the old USSR or India for example. Why do you think people are so keen to join our countries (presuming you are from Europe or the USA)?
  - jasallen 13y ago
    "why should people go to lengths hiding the money they and their companies earn from the government" 1) Because governments, particularly democratic ones, tend to spread themselves very thin, change direction often, and serve to many masters, and lack an entrepreneurial surge of passion, they are less capable of unique, inspired, risk/reward, value proposition changes like talked about here. 2) Several inspired people taking different radical approaches is more likely to happen upon one that works. In short, he and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are hackers of super-scale.
    - jasallen 13y ago
      eh, spelling and grammar, oops, too late to edit. sigh
- _delirium 13y ago
  I believe there is also a link that countries have the lowest tax rates have the highest levels of philanthropy. That would be an interesting relationship to read something about. Some brief searching doesn't turn up any good studies either way. If we limit it to developed countries, the hypothesis would be that philanthropy is highest in low-tax places like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Chile; at a middle level in middle-tax places like Canada, the USA, and South Korea; and at the lowest level in high-tax places like Germany, France, and Sweden. I suppose there might be some confounding cultural differences between N. America, S. America, Asia, and Europe as well. Also may look different depending on whether you're looking at large donors, or at typical contribution by the median household. (The list above chosen fairly arbitrarily, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... as the metric for general tax levels in a country.)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- barking 13y ago
  Taxpayers give too. They just don't get much/any credit for it. When the government's taking over 50c of every euro you earn, you are giving plenty.
  - AutoCorrect 13y ago
    nah, giving implies that you have a choice in the matter.
- nodata 13y ago
  Does your definition of philanthropy include giving by a government from taxes on behalf of the population? I read that countries with lower tax rates give less per capita than countries with higher tax rates. I'll try and find a source.
- breakyerself 13y ago
  It could be because less philanthropy is needed in higher tax places like Norway since they've effectively eliminated poverty there.
barking 13y ago
He didn't contribute his fair share to paying teachers, bin men, hsopitals etc in order to have more money to spend on stuff he wanted to. This included funding some very dodgy characters in Ireland which helped in their political rise at the expense of a moderate party that had opposed violence all through the troubles.

Seems fair enough to me. I believe there is also a link that countries have the lowest tax rates have the highest levels of philanthropy.

ljf 13y ago
Fair enough, but not something personally agree with - why should people go to lengths hiding the money they and their companies earn from the government, so that they can choose where it goes. If you don't agree with the way the government works or spends, then it's time to help change that through voting and engaging in politics. Otherwise only pet projects and passions get funded, while the daily bread and butter work of govt keeping the streets clean and cities functioning gets forgotten and sidelined. Just my 2pence
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  the daily bread and butter work of govt keeping the streets clean and cities functioning gets forgotten and sidelined. These functions are only a small portion of government spending - it's mostly just wealth redistribution. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_total http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_total
  - clicks 13y ago
    And that is a-okay with me. I say that because the term 'wealth redistribution' when it's used usually carries with it a loaded connotation, which I'm not sure if you meant to communicate across or not. It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution' programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      > It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution' programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day. Many people disagree and believe that this end is much better served through charity than through (wasteful, bureaucratic, inherently un-personal) redistribution. Tax planning for the purpose of charity is just "putting your money where your mouth is".
      - satellitecat 13y ago
        I'm not sure it actually is wasteful, though. Social Security in the US is supposed to have minuscule overhead. In Canada, even the government can't always be trusted to not give money to charity groups that are anti-gay -- individuals might find that a feature, not a bug, of the charity :P. Knowing an accountant, I know that many charities put barely any of their income towards the actual charity (the legal minimum is 2%.. two percent!). Breast cancer gets huge amounts of donations, while less glamourous, but more lethal cancers get much less. I know that if I were to hit hard times, I'd rather have something not too personal, rather than feeling beholden to random people, nice and generous as they may be. Plus, do we really want selfish people to keep the most money? :) Screw those people, give with the rest of us, with professionals deciding where the money goes, not random people's pet interests :P
    - Spooky23 13y ago
      Wealth redistribution is a term of art that has a meaning which isn't necessarily a negative. In general, the problems with these programs is that they create dependency, and cannot be cut. When rough times come around, the first thing to be slashed are the citizen facing (and often job impacting) functions like street cleaning, police patrols and staffing at the city clerk's office. As an example, in my US State, the Department of Transportation hasn't pruned trees and has reduced mowing at the roadside since 2009. The result? Traffic signs are obscured by branches (safety hazard), and the road drainage systems are going to be clogged by leaves and brush. This builds an implicit debt, as mowing grass and cutting trees is cheaper than rebuilding roads early and dealing with the human and financial costs of accidents. In the meantime, Medicaid spending automatically increases as much as 10-15% a year.
  - ljf 13y ago
    Wow, did not know the US spent so much on healthcare, considering that it is not free for all. In the UK we spend about 10% GDP and it's free for everyone. Different set ups I know, but seems crazy to spend more, and then ask people to spend loads on health insurance.
  - breakyerself 13y ago
    Yeah redistributing wealth to the top.
- cmdkeen 13y ago
  Except "rich people trying to influence politics" is an easy attack line for those that disagree with the changes you are trying to make. Mr Feeney is clearly someone who prefers operating out of the limelight, which is the exact opposite of the kind of personality who can use money to drive political change. It also, in a very Carnegie fashion, shows the other way rich people can influence state spending. Offering money if the state does something (usually give money as well) in return. Carnegie used to give money for a town library if the town would pay for it's upkeep, Feeney offers money for universities and tech parks if the state chips in as well. Much better than running a nebulous "I think government should be like this" campaign.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  ummm, maybe because they are the ones that EARNED the money, so they have a right to say where it goes?
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    Would they have EARNED as much in a country without a government-provided legal system and financial system and infrastructure? Like, say, Somalia?
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      Please stop doing that. Our two options are not Statism and Somalia.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - ljf 13y ago
    Earning money needs a wealthy country to support you and your business. Why shouldn't you support the country that provided your wealth? And if your answer is that you will give to charity, then please answer the rest of my question above.
    - AutoCorrect 13y ago
      please enlighten me with your fully documented study supporting your conclusions. It does not take a wealthy country, it takes an individual willing to work hard and sacrifice. Anything else is just blame shifting. We do support the country that provides our wealth - we participate in the local economy. We give to charity. We provide a valuable service to the community. We help others in need. You seem to conflate paying taxes with supporting a country/region, when that is not the case.
      - ljf 13y ago
        First I ask the same of you, and the answer to my question, where are the charities cleaning the streets or changing street lights? And good luck out side of the western world getting by with a hard working business owner to run any kind of high flying business. Good luck with the bribes you'll be paying the old USSR or India for example. Why do you think people are so keen to join our countries (presuming you are from Europe or the USA)?
- jasallen 13y ago
  "why should people go to lengths hiding the money they and their companies earn from the government" 1) Because governments, particularly democratic ones, tend to spread themselves very thin, change direction often, and serve to many masters, and lack an entrepreneurial surge of passion, they are less capable of unique, inspired, risk/reward, value proposition changes like talked about here. 2) Several inspired people taking different radical approaches is more likely to happen upon one that works. In short, he and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are hackers of super-scale.
  - jasallen 13y ago
    eh, spelling and grammar, oops, too late to edit. sigh
_delirium 13y ago
I believe there is also a link that countries have the lowest tax rates have the highest levels of philanthropy. That would be an interesting relationship to read something about. Some brief searching doesn't turn up any good studies either way. If we limit it to developed countries, the hypothesis would be that philanthropy is highest in low-tax places like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Chile; at a middle level in middle-tax places like Canada, the USA, and South Korea; and at the lowest level in high-tax places like Germany, France, and Sweden. I suppose there might be some confounding cultural differences between N. America, S. America, Asia, and Europe as well. Also may look different depending on whether you're looking at large donors, or at typical contribution by the median household. (The list above chosen fairly arbitrarily, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... as the metric for general tax levels in a country.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
barking 13y ago
Taxpayers give too. They just don't get much/any credit for it. When the government's taking over 50c of every euro you earn, you are giving plenty.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  nah, giving implies that you have a choice in the matter.
nodata 13y ago
Does your definition of philanthropy include giving by a government from taxes on behalf of the population? I read that countries with lower tax rates give less per capita than countries with higher tax rates. I'll try and find a source.
breakyerself 13y ago
It could be because less philanthropy is needed in higher tax places like Norway since they've effectively eliminated poverty there.

barking 13y ago

He didn't contribute his fair share to paying teachers, bin men, hsopitals etc in order to have more money to spend on stuff he wanted to. This included funding some very dodgy characters in Ireland which helped in their political rise at the expense of a moderate party that had opposed violence all through the troubles.