Discussed at the time, 7 months ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24483283 (1336 points/853 comments)

All the comments declaring that $2m isn't broke are not seeing the wood for the trees. No other person in history has given away this much of their wealth whilst living. No-one.

Yes the headline might be misleading but ffs stop nit picking and fully appreciate what he's done

Seriously, goddamn. He had, say, 2002 million, he gave away 2000 and he kept 2 for himself, and people are fucking OUTRAGED. If he had 2000 million and gave all of it away, well, people still wouldn't be satisfied because people suck.

Close to $8,002 million but the point stands.

Handful men-children will always complain on the internet about something (everything).

No point to pay any attention to it.

Just another reason for rich people to justify their current behaviour. Why donate, if you would still be shat on by envios poor bastards? Fml

Do you really believe that if you are not aware of something that did not happen? For one example read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crates_of_Thebes . There are perhaps many, many, many more.

You are so right. I get happiness out of 1 of every 100 hn stories. This was a big one.

I think the "not picking" is justified. If the journalist who wrote this can't get the headline right or intentionally made it misleading, than can we trust the rest of their content? Journalistic integrity is a valid concern.

Oh come on, nobody in this thread shitting on the guy who gave away $8 billion is concerned with journalistic integrity.

$2 million in retirement is $80k/yr. Most of the people reading this thread will retire with twice that or more.

Your math is based on the "4% rule" but that assumes you retire at age 65. Chuck Feeney is 89, so it is more like $350,000 a year.

That said, I agree with you that nitpicking headlines is a constant on HN. It is low value, gets tiresome, doesn't actually improve the web, and makes me stay away from HN in favor of other communities that actually want to engage with articles and not just their headlines.

> It is low value, gets tiresome, doesn't actually improve the web, and makes me stay away from HN in favor of other communities that actually want to engage with articles and not just their headlines.

I find it to be high value. The misleading-ness of a title is a proxy for quality of content, in my opinion.

Isn't the 4% rule to avoid eating into the principal? Why would that change based on your age?

I don't see people knocking the Billionaire, only the title.

Journalists making attention grabbing headlines is not big news

A man giving away $8bn leaving himself $2m really is. I mean it really really is.

"A man giving away $8bn leaving himself $2m really is."

I agree. If it really is that big news, then a title phrased the way you did above would be work and be truthful.

Who's nitpicking? It's an objectively incorrect headline.

Missing the whole thrust and pointing out that a minor aspect is objectively correct is almost the definition of nitpicking

Donating is cool. Does he want a medal, too?

Everyone is reacting to the title. Authors don’t choose their own titles. Neither the article nor the former billionaire mentioned broke.

Please read a bit further and consider the plan as it actually was conceived, a plan to give away virtually all of his money in his lifetime. Don’t let the headline writer spin you.

Literally the first paragraph clarifies the plan:

> As a philanthropist, he pioneered the idea of Giving While Living—spending most of your fortune on big, hands-on charity bets instead of funding a foundation upon death.

The article clarifies what "broke" means for Forbes.

> Over the last four decades, Feeney has donated more than $8 billion to charities, universities and foundations worldwide through his foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies. When I first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement. In other words, he's given away 375,000% more money than his current net worth.

So yeah, I wish I'd be broke with a $2 million net worth.

>So yeah, I wish I'd be broke with a $2 million net worth

You wish it now, which is a trivial wish to increase your net worth.

The impressive thing would be if you would wish it once you had 8 billion dollars in the bank, when it would be a wish to hugely decrease your net worth, like this person.

I have but admiration for the guy. I’m just questioning the offensive definition of “broke” according to Forbes.

I agree it's not exactly broke by any reasonable definition, but keep in mind the man is 89 years old. This is his retirement, and while statistically he could spend $200-250k/yr and probably have a bit left over when he dies, conventional wisdom says he can pull off $75-80k/yr if he wants to pass on the majority of the principal. Not exactly living the lifestyle of a billionaire.

This is so inspirational. He gives billionaires a good name. I love people who have a philosophy without exceptions.

Deleted

To me, your comment sums up modern online discourse.

"Billionaire gives away all his wealth"

"BULLSHIT, HE ISN'T HOMELESS, THIS IS OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO WEALTH"

> To me, your comment sums up modern online discourse.

Misinformation is a problem in society today, and false headlines are a contributing factor. People, whether rightly or wrongly, incorporate false information from headlines into their model of the world, as surely not everyone is reading the entire article.

An honest writer can not compete with the clickbait headlines, so it tends to get worse and worse over time as they need to one up each other to invoke emotions to get the clicks.

I see nothing wrong with trying to fight back by pointing this out. I opt not to click on these types of links to avoid financially rewarding this type of behavior, however futile it may be. I also trust the source less since I’ve already been lied to in the first few words I read, so why should I bother continue reading?

However tiny the effect of this specific publication, it chips away at trust in society.

Deleted

This is "correcting" in the sense that someone is pointing at something and you're "correcting" people to look at the finger instead of the something. Yes, you are technically correct, but you aren't making any friends.

Well, let's fix Stavros' summary then. How about:

To me, your comment sums up modern online discourse. "Billionaire gives away all his wealth"

"BULLSHIT, LET ME RANT ON THE WORD CHOICE OF THE EDITORIALIZED TITLE".

Either defend your comments or actually delete them.

I choose to delete my posts/comments if I feel they’re too negative.

The title states he is "broke" now, while the article explains "he had set aside about $2 million for his and his wife's retirement". I don't want to play down what he has done but for most people that is really far from being broke.

Writers don’t write headlines. Neither the article nor the billionaire mention broke, other than “go for broke”....search the article.

You fell for it, and this is why publications choose the headlines themselves. They know what riles people up.

I'm not riled up, but this clickbait-y headline made me (subconsciously) question everything else in the article.

If a billionaire gives away 99,9x% of his wealth that is fantastic news and I think Chuck Feeney is really great for doing so. No need for exaggeration.

But you are right, I should have made it clear that my comment is really aimed at the Forbes editor and not the author or C. Feeney.

And my opinion of Forbes journalistic integrity and accuracy has just plummeted. Why should I trust what they publish if they can't get the headline right or made it intentionally misleading?

$2m is a top end superannuation retirement fund any ordinary mortal could aspire to. After $1.6m in Australia you can't contribute more in the low tax regime.

I'm not saying it isn't a shit tonne of money but $8b is more like obscene money, lots and lots of ordinary people retire with $2m between a couple. Nothing like half , a top cohort of the retirement pool, but I know several (I'm not one btw)

If he really did give it away and there isn't some cunning plan, good on him.