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 guess I would dream of a utopia where children dont go to bed hungry, have a roof over their head, good healthcare and the developing world isnt screwed over to enable the elite to own property portfolios. We all have to leave it behind when we die anyway. The incentive to work more should be enjoyment of the job, a sense of satisfaction. Maybe this is the problem with capitalism? That we all think that loads of money will make us happy?

Most people would want the same things as you Antonia87 but each generation wants their children to do better and although we leave money behind when we go, most people leave it to their children.

I've seen this point made several times but here goes .

You could wipe out all inequality and give everyone the same amount of money - but people have personalities and place values on materials things. So A gets your nails done, B gets a hair cut, C likes bingo, D drinks too much, E has a drug habit, F likes holidays, G has three children with hobbies, H keeps lots of cats but then there is J!! J speculates to accumulate, J goes and buy lots of X product, does a mark up and triples her money.

That's free market economy. And it's why J will be wealthy and the others won't. It's all about drive, motivation, and risk taking.

I agree that this is a moral question but a very difficult one to answer. Because yes, in worldwide times the majority of us are incredibly wealthy. IMO, what matters is what we do with the money we earn. Do we help others less fortunate than ourselves? Only we can answer that question, it’s down to our individual consciences.

Government has a role in setting taxation, though, and in how we handle world debt.

A very interesting discussion.

TheDowagerCuntess, yes It probably would be above my earnings as we don't have financial security but I would be happy to pay more tax to see less people sleeping rough and no food banks.

I agree, OP, so would I.

Years ago, the Liberal Party based their Election campaign about helping the NHS with a 1p rise in income tax. Every time people were interviewed they said they would vote Liberal and completely agreed with the 1p rise. But they did not - what people say they want to do, is often different when it is actually going to cost them money.

We are pretty well-off, but inheritance and DH's high salary means that on top of charity donations I can work PT and volunteer my expertise and time to two charities that help the disadvantaged train, find highly paid careers etc. I reckon I can do more good that way than by handing out the money and going back to FT work.

For me , the problem is that most of the wealthy will say they give to charity but as a percentage of income its usually very small ; not in all cases of course. It would be better to simply not allow people to earn an excessive amount and change what we value as a society. Success measured in terms of how our poorest members are fairing. I dont know. I know socialism has failed but was that true socialism?

Are you writing an assignment?

YABU. Nothing immoral about it at all. People are entitled to have money and to decide what they do with their own money. None of your business at all.

Of course you are right OP. Sadly I don't think anything will ever be done about it as so many people are greedy.

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

But where the cut-off should be is a moral question. What are people allowed to aspire to, before they help others. The OP appears to have set the level so high there's (I guess) no chance she will have to make any sacrifices, but at the same time she can feel the warm glow that comes from feeling morally superior.

If I own a car worth 10K more than necessary, am I immoral for not giving that 10K away? If I'm allowed to have a nice car just because I want it and can pay for it, would I be allowed to have a helicopter to commute in? If not, what's the difference? Why is a small number of pounds spent on a luxury OK and a big one not? There is no difference in principle.

Bill gates seems to be doing a heck of a lot of good with a large proportion his wealth.

What entitles some people to more money than others?

Writing an assignment? God no! Those days are well and truly passed

mine too - the more I read, the more it sounded like an assignment!

Yanbu. But you’re going to get a lot of terse replies as your question will make some feel defensive.
People who can should give back and share. This can take many different means.

I don't have an issue with people being rich actually.

But I really do mind that they're not paying more tax. Charity is no use, it needs to be structured. Still can't forgive the Tories for cutting the higher rate.

It's not inherently immoral. It depends how the money was earned in my view. If you make sacrifices, work harder than everyone around you and go on to accumulate wealth I can't begrudge that at all. If you head up a drug cartel and lead an organisation which kills people and commits all manner of other similarly abhorrent acts to accumulate wealth, I can certainly begrudge that.

The broader questuon for me is how and why monopolies are created and why the wealth accumulated on the back of those monopolies disappears and becomes untouchable. If monopolies come about because of corruption and big businesses paying politicians (via campaign donations, promises of jobs etc) to rig the market in their favour we have a real problem. I am very much a free market capitalist but I understand the arguments of those to the left of me on the political spectrum. Right now neither the left or the right can be at all happy, in the West most nations have big governments which ought to please the left but those governments don't really perform a leftist function. Instead they offer quite poor public services whilst ensuring that big business retains its strangle hold so we have a pretty dreadful half way house which frustrates everybody. I think you really need to commit to capitalism or socialism, at the moment we're kind of centre-left and kind of centre-right and the only real beneficiaries are those who happened to find themselves in positions of power when the music stopped in this game of musical chairs.

Nothing immoral about it, some people work hard or are lucky and shouldn't have to give it away.

Nobody wants children to go to bed hungry or be homeless but giving away money won't make the parents not providing for their children suddenly step up and meet their responsibilities.

Capping salaries won't work, there's a reason some jobs command a high salary as there is skill, time, effort involved etc.

Agree with FenceSitter. You could theoretically give everyone in society the same amount of money as a starting point, but some would use that to create more wealth, others would squander it. That's life.

My DH is the son of refugees who came here in the late 60s. He has never been given anything, funded himself through uni. Now at 45 he employs several hundred people on salaries from 20k to 200k and has made multi millions. He has obviously paid the same multi- millions in tax. We own our house and have bought houses for family members. We pay school fees and do not take up state places, nor healthcare (except for A&E). DH was co- founder of a charity based in India.

I have cousins who came from more wealthy and stable backgrounds who have never worked in their lives. These are now men in their 50s. The most they have done is "bootlegging" duty- free from Calais and other such dodgy schemes. They have claimed benefits since leaving school and will do into old age.

Not sure about inherent immortality, but I am uncomfortable about the idea (and responsibility) that would come with having vastly more than we need... I would never play the lottery as I know money would change me (tho dh would want to buy a dairy farm and then we would be poor and getting up at 4 am anyway) I don't like the idea of being treated like some kind of vip because I was rich or even having a cleaner would make me feel that I thought I was something I wasn't.

I know everythings relative, but I even feel annoyed at the waste when formula one drivers spray expensive champagne everywhere or when they put gold leaf on stuff on masterchef.

@Fencesitter01 and @Cresceno have summarised the reasons why I favour free market capitalism over socialism pretty well. I want a fair and equal society but I don't have much confidence in the state's ability to effectively administer it without destroying any notion of freedom for the individual and killing ambition and innovation. People aren't born equal when all is said and done so striving for equality of outcome will ultimately ruin any nation which seriously strives for it. I think the best you can do is aim for equality of opportunity, and even then you can't do a great deal about people being born into unequal circumstances and having different starting points in life. With that in mind I prefer the idea of the state getting out of the way to avoid a rigged market/monopoly situation and leaving people to achieve the best they can.

and risk taking

Is it risk taking when the Government bails you out? (Banks)