AIBU- to thing that being very rich is inherently immoral

[Antonia87]

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?

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?

Whats your cut off?

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

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.

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

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.

Agree with this.

That would be for developed countries

Neolara it should have said

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

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.

I would give it a go though

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 😁

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

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.

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

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

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

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

I agree with this to a point - I don't think that anyone in the world needs to be a billionaire for instance. Having more money than you can even physically spend seems wrong.