To think billionaires shouldn’t exist?

[ThisIcyWriter]

No one earns a billion through hard work alone - it’s exploitation. AIBU to think billionaires shouldn’t exist in a fair society?

This idea that billionaires would work less is bizarre. Wealth isn’t based on work. Work is something poor people do. Wealth is amassed by adding value to things. It’s clever, it’s sophisticated, but it’s not the slog you’re referring to when you talk about work.

and even if one billionaire decided not to invest in a new company providing employment and wealth, another millionaire would. The wealth would simply be shared around.

You’re making the mistake of thinking Elon/bill/ roman/warren have some skill to do things that no one else can do.
That’s not the case, there are thousands if not millions of people who can do the same.

This is where economics is such an interesting thing to study- it’s all a game of perception

back to taxes - again, you can’t talk about billionaires in the context of the uk. We don’t have enough and they don’t matter enough. The conversation about billionaires and their wealth must be worldwide. It’s pointless otherwise. The uk is an insignificant player.

Hard work and success are both laudable things to aim for. But just to gain unimaginable wealth is not.

i think you’re just one of those people who doesn’t really understand what £1,000,000,000 looks like in reality. It would need more than 2 lifetimes to spend it, even without compound interest etc.

It’s you who sounds bitter, tbh. There are plenty who think because they’ve done well, they’re closer to the billionaire than the minimum wage employee. They are not.

And the charity thing is part of the whole irritation. I don’t want billionaires to give money to charity. I don’t want these few people deciding what social needs are invested in based on their values and wants. Why should they decide? In a fair society charity is obsolete

I’m very happy for these people to give money to charity. At least their money would be used to achieve something positive. All of us who donate have the choice of where our money goes so why not the wealthiest?

Cupcakes2035 · Today 01:52
the whole system needs a refocusing and better society for all

How would you arrange this for the whole world? Individual countries can set taxes as they wish so how would every country be prevented from having billionaires?

That’s a dumb comment. Why would one person need to do it?

Yeah let us know next time you’re choosing between funding a million polio vaccines in Eritrea or HIV drugs for 60 million in Niger.

That’s a dumb comment.

Why?

That’s a dumb comment. Why would one person need to do it?

Ok, let me rephrase that. How would it be organised so the whole world stops having billionaires?

Because who would think that worldwide societal long term change would EVER be the responsibility of one person to create and implement? It’s such a basic comment.

You this isn’t a one person solution. It’s not a gotcha comment

@AquaPeer I'm not getting your posts unless you read the you as meaning you personally

I took it to mean how would it be done, a more general question

Hahahaha… Mumsnet is so amusing. I really hope it is not representative of the population as that would be quite worrying. I suspect these great statements come from people who do nothing but to blame and envy the people who do better than them. After all the U.K. 60 percent is on welfare so not hard to get to conclusions.

Well they do. However, I find that quite worrisome too as certain charities and organisations are dubious and hide in good causes and then use to push other agendas. Black lives matters in the US got a lot and the money allegedly disappeared for instance.

The point is it’s not a one person initiative. Many posters are being asked to document how THEY would do it. It’s obvious no one has the answer.

or to put it in Elon terms- when he decided to send a rocket to Mars do you think he thought

“Hmmmm I don’t know exactly how to send a rocket to the moon. I should probably just forget about it”

It’s actually 53% who receive benefits and half of that 53% are recipients of the state pension. Obviously it would be far fewer people if we didn’t subsidise employers who pay low wages. I’m pretty sure a very high percentage of people, benefit claimants or not, think it obscene that the most wealthy people on the planet have more money than some countries’ GDP.

@AquaPeer it's not a dumb question to ask how something would be done

So if billionaires aren’t allowed to exist, what would that mean? Once they pop over that billion mark, they have to start giving their money away? The idea needs padding out a bit for it to be a proper discussion.

The biggest issue of restricting potential earnings is what will be the motivation to work, use good brains, take risks with new business ventures etc?
There’s another thread on MN atm - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5272714-to-think-being-on-benefits-might-be-better-than-working

Food for thought.

Do you think there is a simple, workable answer to this sitting on mumsnet? Because when people say that I just think they haven’t understood the gratuity of the change required.

but the fact that it’s long term, collaborative and complex doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t happen

No it means that value is restricted. The ability to create and gain value. It’s not about ££ into bank accounts

as I said before, there are no trillionaires. What stops there being trillionaires? There isn’t enough value in the world to make it happen

this would be the same, but a reduction in the baseline of what isn’t possible

but the fact that it’s long term, collaborative and complex doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t happen

And the pp asked a question on that. People are too quick to insult with 'dumb'

It wasn't. It's a valid question

Interesting, but I don’t see how that would help? I thought the original objection was more about the distribution of wealth, not about the extremes of it. After all reducing the top ‘baseline’ would just mean a reduction in the lower one too, with everything in between remaining relative.

Generally I would rail against any idea of limiting people’s potential achievements, but in a world where it is becoming more and more obvious that extreme wealth can lead to extreme misuse of power, I would be open to a properly considered solution. I just don’t think one exists.

I do agree that billionaires should be banned. I'm all for people enjoying the fruits of their labour, but anyone with that much is making it off the backs of others.
Wealth should be capped at something like 50 million, which is still an obscene amount of money which no one needs, anything over that should be given to any charity of that person's choosing. Money needs to be spent to keep the economy moving, rather than sitting in a bank account.

@AquaPeer

Cupcakes2035 said:
the whole system needs a refocusing and better society for all.

I was wondering how Cupcakes thought her suggestion should be achieved. Do you have any ideas?

@AquaPeer you might need to sit down for this but I'm pretty sure Musk is on track to become the first trillionaire at some point in 2025.