Should billionaires exist?

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.editorialboard.com/should-billionaires-exist/

Whenever progressive Democrats talk about billionaires, it’s in the soft tones of fairness. Men like Elon Musk, we’re told, should pay proportionally what normal non-billionaires pay. The debate is steeped in the inoffensive language of “their fair share.”

The debate is backwards.

Instead of starting with “their fair share,” we should start with a question fundamental to every democracy that’s existed, to wit:

Should billionaires exist?

Should their influence be legal?

Billionaires are not just very obscenely rich. With their wealth comes planetary power. Their decisions affect billions and billions of people, who in turn have no say on whether those decisions should be made.

*snip*

[Autumn]

1. Sure. As long as they are taxed at 99%.

[brooklynite]

2. If they've earned a Billion legitimately, yes.

[Caliman73]

20. What is "legitimately"?

Bill Gates technically stole information from IBM to found Microsoft. He forced many smaller companies out through unethical business practices.

Warren Buffett has invested in companies that degraded the environment. He also ruined competitors.


Musk inherited wealth from Emerald mining in Africa, has been notoriously and used unethical tactics to oppose Unionization of his auto workers.

Bezos' tactics and treatment of employees is well known.

Zuckerberg's methods of money making are also well known.

So, when we say "legitimate" what are we talking about, strictly legal? Ethical? Socially responsible?

My completely biased opinion posits that you cannot amass that type of fortune in a pro-social way. If not outright criminally, you have to be willing to hurt others to make that much money. A million dollars, sure, sell hamburgers, pizza, cars, write a song, play a sport. Billions? Hundreds of Billions? Money has to become a lot more important than people.

[brooklynite]

26. JK Rowling wrote books

[Caliman73]

30. Yes she did.

She may be one of the only "legitimate" billionaires on the list.

[LakeArenal]

3. As long as the rest of us live at least adequately.

Can pay a hefty car repair without going bankrupt.


It’s never been about what “they” have. It’s about what the rest of us don’t have.

[Caliman73]

23. Part of why we don't have, is because of what they have and want more of...

"Should Billionaires exist?" is an abstract seeming question, but the problem lies in the details.

Those people are so powerful that they influence the policies that are created, globally. They rig the tax code by donating to politicians and lobbying to place much of the tax burden on the middle and working class, which affects our ability to accumulate the wealth needed to "live adequately"

The United States, where most of these people live, is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Yet we have people who are starving, who are homeless, and who have no access to resources to help them. That is due in good part to policies which very wealthy people advocate for.

Sure, they give a million dollars to charity. What is the percentage of their wealth of a million dollars. Elon Musk is worth 274 Billion dollars, that is 274 thousand million dollars. a million dollars donated seems a lot but it is 0.000364963504% of his wealth. So, to get to less than one percent in donations, that number would have to go to over 1 billion dollars.

The question can be restated as why does one person need so much money when there are people starving?

[LakeArenal]

28. They give money to charities.....ha...

Like Public television and things like that.

I still resent the billions donated to Notre Damn (pun intended) Cathedral reconstruction in about 24 hours.

Seriously… a church….let the Vatican pawn some jewels or sell some property.

[48656c6c6f20]

4. Maybe not

"We have not half enough as it is. We ought to have six score a day.”

[Torchlight]

5. I see little use for them other than excuse-machines for 1st-world indulgence

I see no use for their undue and weighted influence.

[Walleye]

6. I thought that 90% tax bracket worked pretty well.

The claim that rich people are gonna be disincentivized from making money is ridiculous

[NCjack]

7. No. The influence enormous wealth in the hand of a single person

makes our society undemocratic.

[empedocles]

19. Power corrupts

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/louis_d_brandeis_140392

- Louis D. Brandeis quotes from BrainyQuote.com "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

[leftstreet]

21. +1 His wealth makes him his own economy

Lucky for the world he wants to buy social media board seats and not nuclear submarines

[Caliman73]

25. Well, at least for now, he cannot buy nuclear submarines.

However, the nuclear submarines that are in the possession of the United States Navy, certainly do have in their orders, to protect the shipping lanes that allow home to amass and keep the wealth that he has. They aren't his, but they certainly work for his interests.

[onecaliberal]

8. No

[iscooterliberally]

14. +1

[raccoon]

31. +2. nt

[Jack the Greater]

9. Someone is always going have more than someone else.

You are asking , "How much more should one person be allowed to have than another?"

Maybe a better question might be, "How many people can the planet sustain in terms of clean water and food?"

But maybe not.

[Caliman73]

29. That question is constantly being asked and researched.

The question is being asked whether it is ethical for individuals to have so much wealth and power while other people starve to death.

Money is arbitrary, but it has real world consequences. For Bezos and Musk to have almost a quarter of a trillion dollars between them, how many people are kept in poverty? Them having that much money and political power is linked to other people living on less than a dollar a day.

It does also mean that we have to look at ourselves in the US and other "modern economies" and see if our lifestyles are sustainable.

[ripcord]

10. So what should be the cap on how much someone can make and hold at the same time? n/t

[meadowlander]

11. If they earn it themselves with sustainable, legal and fair business practices, sure.

There should be a cap on inheritances over $20 million though. And a major crackdown on abusive labor practices and political corruption.

[Solly Mack]

12. If we, as an entire planet of people, valued what truly mattered - the well-being of all people

then it wouldn't matter if billionaires existed. And, chances are, they wouldn't exist in such a world.

By well-being I mean clean water, clean air, a place to live, health care, education, opportunities, fairness, actual justice, etc..

That as a planet, we work to stamp out war lords, tyrants, dictators, corrupt politicians and business leaders and models, discrimination, all opportunistic and predatory acts - because someone always suffer when they are allowed and then tolerated or justified, or rationalized away - or worse, deemed legal.

Without a doubt that's idealistic and it demands a certain level of decent and compassionate behavior from humans that too many humans are incapable of achieving.

But a sad fact is a lot of what is wrong in the world is a reflection of what is valued as opposed to what isn't.

[mopinko]

13. as long as moneyspeech, it's a big problem.

if they'd mind their own business, i'd mind mine.

[NewHendoLib]

15. Not today's specimens

[RainCaster]

16. Yes! Who else should clean out my catbox?

Asking for a friend...

[Akoto]

17. If they honestly and legitimately earn the cash, absolutely. nt

[Mysterian]

18. Not unless there is equity with the distribution of wealth

With the great concentration of wealth in a few families, the answer is no.

[Hoyt]

22. I'm fine wiht more billionaires. Just tax them accordingly and minimize impact on politics.

May I ask what is the "The Editorial Board?"

[Caliman73]

32. Can those things exist together?

Billionaires tend to want to keep their billions and amass even more. They will inevitably do things to ensure that they can do just that. It means "lobbying" government (with their billions) to define money as speech, then to use that "speech" to get politicians to adjust that tax code to go easy on them, thus shifting the tax burden onto the rest of us.

Bezos and Musk can't have Unionized, higher wage workers eating into their profit so they will lobby against organizing. They will pay their armies of lawyers to get special zoning and tax rates.

When you have people who have more wealth than they can possibly spend, they find "other" uses for that money. There is a certain point (I don't know what it is) when money becomes less important than the power that you can buy with it. You start wanting money to get more power and a feedback loop develops.

[mvd]

24. They need to be taxed fairly and..

Our system needs to be designed to limit their influence in politics and in general. As said above, the biggest problem is with what so many people have to go without.

[Emile]

27. The last guy I worked for was a billionaire. Tight ass SOB

paid hourly workers peanuts! Had so much money he bought the Jacksonville Jaguars for his entertainment. Huge tax evader too!

[Patterson]

33. Do you mean not let people have a billion dollars or we should kill all the billionaires?

[Hortensis]

34. No. Check my Nancy Pelosi quote below. She's quoting Louis Brandeis

from early last century about the incompatibility of allowing ultrawealthy classes with representative democracy.

[Amishman]

35. Yes, but our tax law should make it a lot harder to get there

We need several more tax brackets for income, and at least another tier for capital gains

[hunter]

36. I think they should be taxed out of existence.

Innovators who actually contribute to human progress are going to keep innovating irregardless of whether they have a net worth of a hundred billion or a hundred million dollars. It's in their blood. Some of the greatest innovators of human history never really thought about money at all.

If I was Emperor of the Earth the wealthiest guy in the U.S.A. might live in the biggest house on the block, and his lowest paid employee in a nice small house a short ways down the street. They might know each other because their kids play on the same soccer team or they pass each day on the street while walking their dogs.

The "maximum wage" would be some multiple of the minimum wage, probably some multiple less than twenty.

There would be minimum and maximum wealth as well. Everyone would have safe secure housing, healthy food, appropriate medical care, and rich educational opportunities simply by virtue of being human. That would set the measure for minimum wealth. Maximum wealth would be measured as some multiple of that, perhaps greater than twenty, but certainly less than 100.