Should billionaires exist? 「Yes or No」

[Indian Genius]

No, billionaires shouldn't exist. I'm okay with self-made millionaires, but not with the so-called self-made billionaires. I believe that the billionaires should donate at least 90% of their total income to charities, non-profit NGOs, and scientific organizations. That won't even take their lavish lifestyles from them.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

For as long as the way to become rich is unrestricted and the distribution of wealth is required, I am fine with billionaires existing.

The way to become rich IS restricted though. Someone with the skills and work history to be a plumber won't become rich by working 120 hour weeks for the rest of their life. Maybe that makes them a multi-millionaire, but not a billionaire.

As long as there are narrow ways open for a very few people to become rich, eg inheritance and investment, it is harder for ordinary workers to get rich at all. The more money (whatever definition) the super-rich have, the less there is for everyone else.

[Crabaiaia]

For as long as the way to become rich is unrestricted and the distribution of wealth is required, I am fine with billionaires existing.

The way to become rich IS restricted though. Someone with the skills and work history to be a plumber won't become rich by working 120 hour weeks for the rest of their life. Maybe that makes them a multi-millionaire, but not a billionaire.

As long as there are narrow ways open for a very few people to become rich, eg inheritance and investment, it is harder for ordinary workers to get rich at all. The more money (whatever definition) the super-rich have, the less there is for everyone else.

True though, but we need to find a way to encourage investment between people.

[Hittisha]

The way I personally feel about it, that would depend on whether being allowed to obtain that kind of money proves to be incompatible with maintaining the standard of living for everyone else in a way that doesn't leave them in a scramble just to pay for basic necessities. Although I would also prefer that money not be a deciding factor in who holds political power and how it's used, which I'm certain would be impossible in a society that allows billionaires.

Ultimately, if billionaires should not exist, then it necessarily follows that money itself should not exist. As far as I know, this opens up a can of worms regarding what will make for a decent alternative.

[Page]

I have a friend who came up with a somewhat facetious but also somewhat serious idea, that we should go to every billionaire and give them a trophy and say "Congratulations, you won capitalism. But the game is over now so we'll be taking all your assets."

[Kedri]

If they earned their money legitimately, then why not?

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

No, billionaires shouldn't exist. I'm okay with self-made millionaires, but not with the so-called self-made billionaires. I believe that the billionaires should donate at least 90% of their total income to charities, non-profit NGOs, and scientific organizations. That won't even take their lavish lifestyles from them.

Indeed, failing to do so should see 100% of their assets taken away by the state

[Page]

If they earned their money legitimately, then why not?

By "legitmately" I assume you mean legally. Some billionaires have amassed their wealth legally but none have done it without mass exploitation of workers they would be nothing without, so I don't consider that legitimate.

[Fahran]

The way to become rich IS restricted though. Someone with the skills and work history to be a plumber won't become rich by working 120 hour weeks for the rest of their life. Maybe that makes them a multi-millionaire, but not a billionaire.

As long as there are narrow ways open for a very few people to become rich, eg inheritance and investment, it is harder for ordinary workers to get rich at all. The more money (whatever definition) the super-rich have, the less there is for everyone else.

An average plumber could expect to earn around $60,000 a year. They would earn $3,000,000 over the course of their life time. That's a respectable income and would make them the better part of average by American standards. A decent portion of the people who obtain an education, do not have children out of wedlock, and who do not stumble into drug addiction or criminality will be millionaires by the time they hit sixty. About 6.71% of the population held millionaire status as of last year.

Billionaires are a bit trickier. A slight majority, about 55.8%, of billionaires are self-made, amassing their income through a combination of sound investments, entrepreneuership, and winning in the market. Another 30.9% of billionaires began as millionaires and then generated the wealth that got them to billionaire status. 13.3% purely inherited their wealth. The increasing trend in the billionaire club at present seems to be towards being self-made.

With that being said, America has 800 billionaires and 330 million people. So you have a 0.0002% chance of becoming a billionaire in the United States. A lot of it is down to getting "lucky" with market forces, and being in the multi-millionaires club provides a big boost in that respect.

[Fahran]

By "legitmately" I assume you mean legally. Some billionaires have amassed their wealth legally but none have done it without mass exploitation of workers they would be nothing without, so I don't consider that legitimate.

The Marxian definition of exploitation is hogwash in all honesty.

[Kowani]

The way to become rich IS restricted though. Someone with the skills and work history to be a plumber won't become rich by working 120 hour weeks for the rest of their life. Maybe that makes them a multi-millionaire, but not a billionaire.

As long as there are narrow ways open for a very few people to become rich, eg inheritance and investment, it is harder for ordinary workers to get rich at all. The more money (whatever definition) the super-rich have, the less there is for everyone else.

An average plumber could expect to earn around $60,000 a year. They would earn $3,000,000 over the course of their life time. That's a respectable income and would make them the better part of average by American standards. A decent portion of the people who obtain an education, do not have children out of wedlock, and who do not stumble into drug addiction or criminality will be millionaires by the time they hit sixty. About 6.71% of the population held millionaire status as of last year.

Billionaires are a bit trickier. A slight majority, about 55.8%, of billionaires are self-made, amassing their income through a combination of sound investments, entrepreneuership, and winning in the market. Another 30.9% of billionaires began as millionaires and then generated the wealth that got them to billionaire status. 13.3% purely inherited their wealth. The increasing trend in the billionaire club at present seems to be towards being self-made.

With that being said, America has 800 billionaires and 330 million people. So you have a 0.0002% chance of becoming a billionaire in the United States. A lot of it is down to getting "lucky" with market forces, and being in the multi-millionaires club provides a big boost in that respect.

>Jeff Bezos
>Self-made

What, did that 250K loan from his parents to bail out his business not make it into the author’s worldview?

[Free Ravensburg]

Better question: Should trillionaires exist?

[Fahran]

No, billionaires shouldn't exist. I'm okay with self-made millionaires, but not with the so-called self-made billionaires. I believe that the billionaires should donate at least 90% of their total income to charities, non-profit NGOs, and scientific organizations. That won't even take their lavish lifestyles from them.

It would impact savings and investments, however, which impacts the economy more broadly. That said, I wouldn't mind citizens in general being more philanthropic. It's like pulling teeth to get the average person my age to work at an animal shelter, food bank, or to clean up trash from the street. A lot of this thread seems to be about imposing obligations on billionaires, which I have no problem with on a fundamental level. I think they should pay more taxes on income and capital gains. I think they should view it as a civic and moral responsibility to donate to charities and the arts. And I extend that to each citizen according to their wealth and ability - albeit outside of a socialist framework. If you earn $70,000 a year, you can afford to donate $10,000 a year to your church or the local domestic violence shelter. If you earn $25,000 and are young and fit, you can afford to volunteer your time at the local animal shelter or tutor local children - which is rewarding and looks great on a resume.

[Fahran]

>Jeff Bezos
>Self-made

What, did that 250K loan from his parents to bail out his business not make it into the author’s worldview?

It was an investment by his step-father - an investment that has paid substantial dividends as luck would have it. I wouldn't really consider it a bail-out given that it seems to have been the starting capital. And, at best, Bezos's family was upper middle-class and stood to lose quite a bit on the investment, so it wasn't quite on par with the Donald getting a million dollar freebie from his dad.

[Fahran]

Better question: Should trillionaires exist?

I still consider the question largely irrelevant in all honesty.

The problem with the American economic system isn't that billionaires exist. They exist in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden too after all. It's that we often under-utilize our resources due to our neglect of necessary institutions and resources, that we have often ignored factors that lead to cyclical poverty, and that our tax code, labor market, and trade policies are not beneficial to society as a whole.

[Kowani]

>Jeff Bezos
>Self-made

What, did that 250K loan from his parents to bail out his business not make it into the author’s worldview?

It was an investment by his step-father - an investment that has paid substantial dividends as luck would have it. I wouldn't really consider it a bail-out given that it seems to have been the starting capital. And, at best, Bezos's family was upper middle-class and stood to lose quite a bit on the investment, so it wasn't quite on par with the Donald getting a million dollar freebie from his dad.

Not being on the same level as Trump does not, in fact, allow someone to shift the definition of “self-made”, a very common tactic in these sorts of articles defending the billionaire class. Obfuscation and outright lies.

[Fahran]

Not being on the same level as Trump does not, in fact, allow someone to shift the definition of “self-made”, a very common tactic in these sorts of articles defending the billionaire class. Obfuscation and outright lies.

I mean... going from a $300,000 loan to a net worth of $181.4 billion strikes me as pretty darn close to being self-made. Angel investors, bank loans, stocks and bonds, and other ways of amassing starting capital have long been important to entrepreneurship. The distinction between being self-made and a trust fund baby is usually down to how much work you actually put in yourself. Bezos, as much of an ass as he is, has definitely put in the work.

[Vrolondia]

No. Here's why:

Nobody get rich playing nice. Nobody gets rich without exploiting people beneath them, exploiting loopholes, exploiting regulations, tax havens, coverups, and lobbying to either change or exploit existing laws so they can be exploited more efficiently. Laws exist to maintain the peace, and the peace means status quo; the status quo is a few people on top holding all the power, wealth, and information to change it while the rest are used to enrich them. The ONLY time laws are changed against the status quo is if it is threatened, or peace is disturbed; workers have the rights they have because human filth forced them to unionize and fight for it. Universal Human rights only exist because of vast exploitation forcing people to fight for them. Slavery only ended in America because they got into a war over states autonomy and the election was coming up, so Lincoln needed to appease the North Voters who were overwhelmingly anti-slavery... But didn't ban slavery in the north either.

So no; Billionaires shouldn't exist because they have such an obscene amount of wealth they're not only out of touch with reality, they got and maintain that wealth purely through the exploitation of others, the law, and the community. And every chance they get they try to curb the law a little bit to be more lenient, more exploitable, more profitable, more desirable for them because they couldn't care less about anyone who's not.

[Alvecia]

Not being on the same level as Trump does not, in fact, allow someone to shift the definition of “self-made”, a very common tactic in these sorts of articles defending the billionaire class. Obfuscation and outright lies.

I mean... going from a $300,000 loan to a net worth of $181.4 billion strikes me as pretty darn close to being self-made. Angel investors, bank loans, stocks and bonds, and other ways of amassing starting capital have long been important to entrepreneurship. The distinction between being self-made and a trust fund baby is usually down to how much work you actually put in yourself. Bezos, as much of an ass as he is, has definitely put in the work.

Eh, the richer you are the easier it is to get rich.
Going from 30k to 181bil is exponentially more difficult than 300k

[Kowani]

Not being on the same level as Trump does not, in fact, allow someone to shift the definition of “self-made”, a very common tactic in these sorts of articles defending the billionaire class. Obfuscation and outright lies.

I mean... going from a $300,000 loan to a net worth of $181.4 billion strikes me as pretty darn close to being self-made. Angel investors, bank loans, stocks and bonds, and other ways of amassing starting capital have long been important to entrepreneurship. The distinction between being self-made and a trust fund baby is usually down to how much work you actually put in yourself. Bezos, as much of an ass as he is, has definitely put in the work.

I think we disagree on both the definition of self-made and the market conditions in which Bezos was beginning the money machine.

[Fahran]

Eh, the richer you are the easier it is to get rich.
Going from 30k to 181bil is exponentially more difficult than 300k

Oh, I don't really dispute that at all. My point was more that Bezos wouldn't have become a billionaire or even a multi-millionaire if he had simply waited to inherit everything from his step-father. He'd have been upper middle-class in his middle age. Bezos got to where he was in large part because he started and built his business. And that involves a lot of work and risk on his part. I'm willing to consider him self-made as a result.

With regard to him deserving his wealth because he's a brilliant man, I'm more ambivalent. He got a $300,000 loan and he tried his luck in the right time and place. A lot of it was beyond his control. A lot could have gone wrong - as it did for other people in similar or worse positions. But, as I stated before, I don't really find the question asked by the OP relevant from an economic or ethical perspective.

My more general position is that elites owe society more because society has given them more - and we're all obligated to do our duty to society and the political community. So, while I'm not on the "ban billionaires" train, I'm definitely on the "Bezos stop being a horrid little goblin" train when it comes to the treatment of his employees and his aversion to paying taxes at higher rates.

[Sparanoda]

Billionaires should exist (or be allowed to exist), but the system is flawed. Laws should be reworked to encourage the "captains of industry" idea over the "robber barons" idea. So, once that is fixed (if ever), the problem is solved.

The issue isn't in being a billionaire itself, it is how one gets there. Taking Jeff Bezos for example, he did some nasty stuff but also a few acceptable things. Mostly nasty stuff, sure. Laws and restrictions should be hardened to prevent that. But, if you can get there through more acceptable means, nobody should have a problem with that.

This brings me to the issue of "they didn't work to earn the money." This is not always a fair assessment, and is never a fair assumption. Keep in mind, one can invest capital as well as time. I'll make a very hypothetical example:

You work at a job - plumbing, perhaps - and earn $100. $90 of that is spent to stay alive, pay for tools, enjoy life, etc. You have $10 left. Now, you could spend it away at the movies, or you could invest it. You decide to give it to Farmer John. With it, John buys a higher quality fertilizer and makes an extra $50, of which he gives you $25. You do the same again, giving $10 to John and also $15 for better chicken feed. John makes an extra $80, and gives you $40.

Did you earn those 40 dollars? I would say that you did.

Tackling another point, what if the plumbing job at the beginning only gave you $80? You take out a loan from the bank for $20, and again end up with $40, $30 of which you pay back to the bank. Did you earn the remaining $10?

This certainly doesn't describe every billionaire's rise, but it does constitute a part that is fair.

[Adamede]

I have a friend who came up with a somewhat facetious but also somewhat serious idea, that we should go to every billionaire and give them a trophy and say "Congratulations, you won capitalism. But the game is over now so we'll be taking all your assets."

I liked communists better when they where just industrial about their revolution and following liquidations.

[Fahran]

I have a friend who came up with a somewhat facetious but also somewhat serious idea, that we should go to every billionaire and give them a trophy and say "Congratulations, you won capitalism. But the game is over now so we'll be taking all your assets."

This is a really old meme. I think you friend might have redistributed memes.

[Kassaran]

A not insubstantial amount do so by their own volition. It isn't a hard life or a difficult life as water and basic food is plentiful and easy to get ahold of. What keeps them homeless is either an inability to substantially function in society or personal desire to not function in society.

Generational poverty destroys your claim entirely.

Generational poverty does no such thing, it highlights a completely separate issue. My point is that the homeless of Los Angeles, by and large, are homeless because they suffer from mental health disorders, or a desire to avoid the responsibilities of a citizen.

My point in this was that the homeless are not a part of the equation which everyone else is stating billionaires are a part of. They're another issue in the same genre, but wholly different and inconsequential. You can have homeless people in any society, unless you take a proactive stance in treating their issues. Rojava had stated that there was no need for someone to have the ability to amass billions while some sleep on the streets. That's entirely beggaring Paul to pay Peter.