Do billionaires deserve their money?

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Out current system rewards wealth not work, and as long as that stands, you will concentrate more and more wealth into the hands a few oligarchs,
It’s much scarier now than it was in the oil boom with the barons for old because now with AI, mass data collection, and the up coming neuralAink (which may or may not happen) we are setting up for a real dystopia.

So no, I do not believe such amounts of wealth are “deserved”

Neuralink is a giant step backwards.
I don't know how there are people who see this with good eyes, companies are essential, but not reliable.

[Ostroeuropa]

As an aside, if people are saying "But if you don't let them earn this much, they won't do anything".

Okay.

There's 7 billion other people on the planet. They'll do it instead.

That's the point. Billionaires have valued themselves at such a comical amount that it's absurd to pretend we should accept it.

"If you tell people "Once you've got 999,999,999 dollars, you can't have anymore, then people with 999,999,999 dollars will stop working!".

Oh no!

Whatever will we do without such a vital part of the labour force?

Surely a man with 40k in his bank will see this and think "well I WAS going to found my own company, but now I shant bother.".

God forbid it might, I don't know, be an *incentive* for a wealth cap.

"Really? You promise you'll fuck off and make room for others to start companies in the market?".

Jeff Bezos throws a tantrum and says he won't do anything anymore and we all gasp and say "Oh no! He is such a vital piece of society. Without him, we are completely doomed.". That's the internalized narcissism of the ruling class. Don't buy into it.

He stops working and ten thousand innovators will jump out of their seats and rush to the patent office to take his place for just a *fraction* of the wealth cap to be theirs. "I'll stop working.".

GOOD.

[Holy empires of holy empires]

They should give there money to me cus i am best

Big brain

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

They should give there money to me cus i am best

Big brain

WOW!!!
OH GREAT KING PLEASE MAKE A SIMPLE DONATION TO ME LOL
I AM SO POOR!

[Umeria]

Then how could they have innovated if there's no huge reward???

The joys of limited liability, public corporations....

Okay so we have established that stock options are very desirable despite them not being literal cold hard cash. And since there's been plenty of innovation pre-billionaires, the billionaires don't need that much desirable stuff for society to function, and they don't deserve it either. So what's the justification for them getting it?

[Nimzonia]

i mean, didn't billionaires technically earn their money?

Technically, they obtained it through the means available to them and society didn't stop them. I don't know whether that necessarily equates to earning it.

[Saiwania]

Money doesn't really have a moral compass and arguably shouldn't. It is only however much someone happened to earn in a given year from business activities or from other people paying them that amount or from selling something really valuable/worth a lot.

Anything that is high demand but also scarce will be more expensive than it'd be otherwise.

Assuming something wasn't illegal and the money was gotten legitimately, the only means of correcting the amount someone gets is usually to tax them.

But it also just so happens that governments willingly handicap themselves in how much they can take in having a convuluted/byzantine tax code that constantly changes from different interest groups lobbying for influence from year to year, and because too many people perceive that there is a point where the government can take too much from someone, hence it being unfair or an injustice if/when that happens.

It is sometimes true that the state/politician(s) in charge, wind up not putting a big sum of money to as good of use as the individual/entity being taxed, which further has people not believing the state taking more can be justified- when government by it's nature already takes a lot to play around with and often always finds a way to overspend to the point where deficit spending is done.

[Sordhau]

no. /thread

[Jabberwocky]

Deserve? What's deserve have to do with anything?

[Des-Bal]

If we took a random median income worker and erased them from existence retroactively how much would the world change? How many would we have to remove before the difference was even noticeable? We Thanos snap Mark Zuckerberg and the world looks radically different. How much of our society is actually owed to random median wage workers? Who gave you things you have the things you value? The engine of societal advancement is powered by disproportionate contributions of people who do not necessarily but often reap disproportionate rewards. The only morality to money under a capitalist system is that you eat what you kill. You can say that's unfair, I don't think it's an important conversation. If there's a more worthy system and what you value matters thay system will win. The only justification capitalism requires is that it exists.

[Rusozak]

No. Billionaires shouldn't exist.

[Prima Scriptura]

They should pay a wealth tax. 90% of millionaires and 98% for billionaires

[Sordhau]

If we took a random median income worker and erased them from existence retroactively how much would the world change? How many would we have to remove before the difference was even noticeable? We Thanos snap Mark Zuckerberg and the world looks radically different. How much of our society is actually owed to random median wage workers? Who gave you things you have the things you value? The engine of societal advancement is powered by disproportionate contributions of people who do not necessarily but often reap disproportionate rewards. The only morality to money under a capitalist system is that you eat what you kill. You can say that's unfair, I don't think it's an important conversation. If there's a more worthy system and what you value matters thay system will win. The only justification capitalism requires is that it exists.

This sort of psychotic, machiavellian mentality only validates the need for Socialism. Your ideology is the spawn of evil and I hope I live long enough to see it's inevitable doom.

[Umeria]

If we took a random median income worker and erased them from existence retroactively how much would the world change? How many would we have to remove before the difference was even noticeable? We Thanos snap Mark Zuckerberg and the world looks radically different. How much of our society is actually owed to random median wage workers? Who gave you things you have the things you value? The engine of societal advancement is powered by disproportionate contributions of people who do not necessarily but often reap disproportionate rewards. The only morality to money under a capitalist system is that you eat what you kill. You can say that's unfair, I don't think it's an important conversation. If there's a more worthy system and what you value matters thay system will win. The only justification capitalism requires is that it exists.

The world would not look radically different without Mark Zuckerberg. The social media platform people use would have a different name, that's about it. Technological advancement is what "gave" us these things, and that's powered by teams of scientists over long periods of time, not single moments of genius. Also, it's completely possible for an economic system to be worse than other systems but still win out against them.

[Des-Bal]

This sort of psychotic, machiavellian mentality only validates the need for Socialism. Your ideology is the spawn of evil and I hope I live long enough to see it's inevitable doom.

Cool beans. Now win. Marxist bullshit is only good for fomenting ethnic cleansing, scoreboard baby. How you liking the internet and your consumer electronics by the way?

[Des-Bal]

The world would not look radically different without Mark Zuckerberg. The social media platform people use would have a different name, that's about it. Technological advancement is what "gave" us these things, and that's powered by teams of scientists over long periods of time, not single moments of genius. Also, it's completely possible for an economic system to be worse than other systems but still win out against them.

No it wouldn't.

Glut yourself on the fruits of capitalism, the great beast does not ask for your thanks.

Failing to survive is a pretty big black mark against any system. It's like not a good thing for your economic system to collapse.

[Umeria]

The world would not look radically different without Mark Zuckerberg. The social media platform people use would have a different name, that's about it. Technological advancement is what "gave" us these things, and that's powered by teams of scientists over long periods of time, not single moments of genius. Also, it's completely possible for an economic system to be worse than other systems but still win out against them.

No it wouldn't.

Glut yourself on the fruits of capitalism, the great beast does not ask for your thanks.

What wouldn't? What part of my post is this responding to?

Failing to survive is a pretty big black mark against any system. It's like not a good thing for your economic system to collapse.

Collapsing, sure. But one system "winning" over another just means that it was more effective at violence and destruction, not that it's better.

[Kandorith]

So where is the choice of just: yes, whatever?

[Des-Bal]

Collapsing, sure. But one system "winning" over another just means that it was more effective at violence and destruction, not that it's better.

Being more effective at violence and destruction is probably the most important metric. If your economic system is crushed by violence and destruction that's bad for you. I mean go ahead and say "well we won the more important moral victory" as those you snowed into buying your trash suffer and die, I'm sure it will provide solace.

[Khurkhogur]

Nobody "deserves" anything. There is only what can be done and what can't be done. Billionaires can keep their money as it stands. If you don't think they deserve it, you should be working on how to take it from them.

[Saiwania]

Nobody "deserves" anything. There is only what can be done and what can't be done. Billionaires can keep their money as it stands. If you don't think they deserve it, you should be working on how to take it from them.

How that is done is the state or some more powerful entity taxing them. Problem is that the rich people can just pay off their government to give them accounting tricks/tax breaks to keep themselves richer than might otherwise be the case.

[Umeria]

Collapsing, sure. But one system "winning" over another just means that it was more effective at violence and destruction, not that it's better.

Being more effective at violence and destruction is probably the most important metric. If your economic system is crushed by violence and destruction that's bad for you. I mean go ahead and say "well we won the more important moral victory" as those you snowed into buying your trash suffer and die, I'm sure it will provide solace.

So I guess nihilism is the best ideology because everything will eventually become dust?

In my opinion economic systems should be judged by the conditions of the poorest and those who suffer the most. If you just want to be on the winning side then go ahead

[PhilTech]

I don't know and can't say for sure.

But I am sure that that's just capitalism doing its thing.

[FNU]

All I'll say on the matter is that despite it's very clear flaws, it has ultimately lasted the test of time. If they deserve the money is more up to your views on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, if the person worked their way to where they are rather then leeching off of Mom and Dad or being a scummy person in general, then maybe, otherwise maybe not. I can't really be sure.

[Des-Bal]

So I guess nihilism is the best ideology because everything will eventually become dust?

In my opinion economic systems should be judged by the conditions of the poorest and those who suffer the most. If you just want to be on the winning side then go ahead

Following my logic the best ideology is just the most effective ideology. If anybody would value something as pointless as ultimately being technically correct they would be doing your thkng. I will totally enjoy being on the winning side. So do the poorest and those who suffer most by the way. Being on the losing side sucks you know starvation and shit? If you want to judge systems by mouthfeel that's totally cool just don't pretend it matters.