Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

AIBU- to thing that being very rich is inherently immoral

(123 Posts)
Antonia87 Fri 06-Oct-17 18:03:39

My very good friend and I have been discussing this at length. She believes that it is fine to be very rich and that the pursuit of wealth for his own purpose is not immoral. I believe that retaining considerably more money than you and your children need to have a life without financial worries is potentially immoral as every pound that you retain for your own indulgence is a pound not spent on alleviating the suffering of the poor. Thoughts for a friendly debate?

Neolara Fri 06-Oct-17 18:06:06

I suspect that the vast majority of the world's population would consider you "very rich". How much of your disposable income do you think you should give away?

Gorgosparta Fri 06-Oct-17 18:08:01

Whats your cut off?

florentinasummertime Fri 06-Oct-17 18:10:20

Giving people money doesn't in itself alleviate poverty, so YABU.

AtlanticWaves Fri 06-Oct-17 18:12:26

What is very rich?

And what is a life without financial worries?

Having enough to not work? Or enough for shelter, warmth and food but no luxuries like holidays, cars, meals out...?

Because millions of people would consider having shelter, warmth and food to be rich.

Antonia87 Fri 06-Oct-17 18:12:41

Undoubtedly Neolara. I dont really know what the cut off would be. Owning a property outright and earnings over £250k a year perhaps?

KarateKitten Fri 06-Oct-17 18:12:57

Rich people aren't the problem. Business structures that make it possible for one person to pull billions into their own pocket at the expense of workers is the problem.

So I've no major issue with rich people but they would be and should be less rich overall if businesses were more carefully controlled. That's the job of government.

Ginorchoc Fri 06-Oct-17 18:13:31

Agree with this.

Antonia87 Fri 06-Oct-17 18:13:40

That would be for developed countries

Ginorchoc Fri 06-Oct-17 18:13:59

Neolara it should have said

FiveShelties Fri 06-Oct-17 18:15:55

Who would decide the cut off and who would decide what the 'rich' had to do with their money? What if the cut off is 5K below what your famiIy has, would you be happy to pass it on to some one more deserving? Iwould have no difficulty in dealing with the distribution of excess funds grin

DailyMailReadersAreThick Fri 06-Oct-17 18:17:20

I agree. As my income has risen, so have my donations to charities and food banks.

I think people demanding you choose an arbitrary cut-off don't understand your point: it's a moral question, not a legal one.

Theresamayscough Fri 06-Oct-17 18:19:08

I would give it a go though grin

Antonia87 Fri 06-Oct-17 18:19:28

Yes, It is a moral question not legal and I concur that as our income has risen we have also increased our contributions .

OlennasWimple Fri 06-Oct-17 18:19:31

I think that there is (or should be) a moral imperative to help those who are less fortunate. Whether this is cash, buying goods to donate or giving time depends on particular circumstances and what would be the most beneficial.

makeourfuture Fri 06-Oct-17 18:20:55

Extreme wealth is nothing more than the outcome of a non-functioning tax system.

chickenowner Fri 06-Oct-17 18:21:51

What on Earth is morally wrong about owning a property outright?

FenceSitter01 Fri 06-Oct-17 18:22:12

Hypothetical - why should my earnings be capped if I am worth more? What incentive is there for me to work and better myself?

chickenowner Fri 06-Oct-17 18:22:55

And in worldwide terms many of us in the UK are incredibly wealthy.

PoohBearsHole Fri 06-Oct-17 18:22:56

IT may be immoral but fundamentally it could never happen and work. The aspiration to get to that point would be list leaving more people poorer in the long term and then the perennial - well the cut off should be lower until we became a society of no rich but all poor?

I know what I'm saying but it's probably not coming over correctly. Incidentally I don't own my home outright or earn £250k 😁

WillowySnicket Fri 06-Oct-17 18:24:31

I would say it is the love of money that is the issue. You can't love money and also people, so something (or someone) ends up suffering. Money in and of itself is not a moral entity. As PP have said, big donations, mobilising aid is a great and wonderful thing. The (im)morality comes from the heart response to money

FiveShelties Fri 06-Oct-17 18:24:44

I would never have taken the huge risk of going self employed if my earnings had been capped. Far easier and much less stressful to collect a wage at the end of every month, rather than worry in the early years if I was going to be able to pay my mortgage.

Kursk Fri 06-Oct-17 18:24:53

I think this is going to get interesting. I don’t think that we could ever do this on aworld scale, so there will always be poor people.

Historically socialism hasn’t had much success (Russia, North Koria, Venezuela)

Personally I am pro libertarian, and pro capitalism

nokidshere Fri 06-Oct-17 18:25:36

When I win the 169million tonight I will be sure to share it out grin

Back in the real world I suspect I would be rich by many people's standards except my own - who would decide how much is enough for each family? And what would being rich look like?

Able to afford takeaways? Eating in nice restaurants? Able to buy my own plane? Rich means different things to different people

TheDowagerCuntess Fri 06-Oct-17 18:27:02

The cut-off point is definitely above your earnings, right OP? wink Even though millions of people would consider you rich beyond their wildest dreams, and would love a slice of your pie.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now