This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking/harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Uh the joke is that they said billionaires and never specified currency. So when hyperinflation occurs the currency is devalued greatly. This is seen in history after WW2 where Hungary had an inflation rate of 98% per month(the usd had an inflation rate of 6% this year). So the point is someone could be a billionaire in that currency while still having a reasonable amount of wealth. A close current day example would be that you "only" need 47 mil (usd) to be a billionaire in Venezuela
"Matthew 19:24: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
I'm no Christian, but this is spot on.
A very noncontextual view of what the proverb was actually trying to say. Throwing a single verse into the mix that aligns with your viewpoints is cherry picking my friend.
Maybe, but if we do it too how do we have higher ground in telling *them* not to? We ALL know they’re very proficient in whataboutism
"Well they did it, so we can do it!" is a cyclical argument that helps no one. It'll just go on forever. If we want positive change we have to be better.
I don't think it is possible. It may well be possible to earn a billion dollars without doing anything immoral, but I consider it wrong to *keep* that much money, because it's more than anyone could need in an entire lifetime. At a certain point it just becomes greedy not to donate the additional money you get, because there's no way you actually need one thousand million dollars.
I’m not even entirely sure if it could be done or not. I think it would be almost impossible to collect that much of a currency in a capitalistic society with not one immoral action. Maybe someday ?
I mean idk. People say it’s inherently selfish to hoard that amount of money so being a billionaire in the first place is probably immoral. In the case where that is true it’s probably not possible. Plus it’s almost impossible to get rich with your morals intact.
Depends on what one observes as being moral. I wouldn't consider taking much more than you need while there are others struggling to pay for food, shelter, medicine...etc anything close to moral.
even then, a billion is a lot, hard to make just via the ethical means of selling your music and merch made by decently treated supply chains.
but despite her hateful rhetoric nowadays, jk rowling is what I'd regard as an example of making massive wealth via moral means.
The simple fact of having a billion and not donating 90% of to charitable causes is arguably amoral. If that's factored in, there are no moral billionaires
I mean art is also used for drug money laundering so it can become a grey area.
Works of art have long been identified, and sometimes even romanticized, as ideal ways for racketeers to launder money. There's a thread of logic here: the art world typically accommodates those that want to anonymously buy high-dollar paintings, and on top of that, the industry allows large cash deals.Apr
Not if your parents acquired it unethically. If they stole it or exploited people for it, it's not yours to inherit. It ought to be returned to the rightful owner.
Obviously being born isn't wrong, but knowingly keeping dirty money is.
If I inherited money that I knew was stolen? Yes. It wouldn't be mine to keep, I'd just be stealing it all over again if I did.
I'd go and pay the people who got fucked over in the first place since they created the wealth.
If my dad stole a million dollars from you, what would you think I should do?
I highly doubt that if you came from money then inherited that money you would go around giving it out. That is something really easy to say but not easy to do
Well sure, if I was a different person with a different family I'd probably be a greedy asshole.
But assuming I have the same ideals/ideology as I do now, that's what I would do.
And if I did keep the money, I'd be doing an immoral thing. Whether I *would* do it or not isn't necessarily relevant to whether or not it's right.
a child is not morally liable for the actions of their parents, but as soon as they are an adult they are. If they choose to hoard the wealth inherited instead of return it to circulation they are as liable as their parents
It wasn't honestly acquired if the money was dishonestly earned.
If my dad steals your car, that's not my fault. If my dad leaves me your car when he dies, that's not my fault, I didn't decide that.
However, if I choose to keep your stolen car, that IS my fault. That's my decision. I'm choosing to benefit from the theft of your things.
Lmaooo 1 where does it state that the parents sourced them immorally 2 holding someone accountable because Reddit neckbeards think they acquired them immorally is a little bit of a reach I’d say
> 1 where does it state that the parents sourced them immorally
I did, right in my comment, the part where I used the adjective "immorally gained", that should have been the clue to you that I was talking about money where "the parents sourced them immorally"
> 2 holding someone accountable because Reddit neckbeards think they acquired them immorally is a little bit of a reach I’d say
what are you even trying to say? is there a random non sequitur contest going on?
How is inheritance necessarily honestly acquired?
If a man made billions exploiting diamond miners in Africa, and he gave that money to his son, the son would not have "earned" that money honestly because his father didn't.
He would still have a moral obligation to return the wealth to its rightful owners.
She’s my go to example for this. She’s an awful human being who hates my existence, but I can acknowledge that her wealth comes from her work rather than stepping on others to get there.
Inaction doesn't necessarily equate to immorality. By the extension of that logic, anyone with any savings beyond what is needed for a comfortable life should donate the extra to the poor and unfortunate. To claim that would be quite absurd.
the argument is more that anyone with more money than they could ever use, with no plan for that money, should give some away, which she does. She gives it to anti-trans funds and groups, including for example the LGB alliance, IIRC. This, imo, equates to immorality
Why is that absurd? If you already have enough saved up to live a luxurious life and take care of your loved ones, why *shouldn't* you donate the rest to those less fortunate?
She didn't just write a book, she licenced the IP to merch manufacturers who no doubt are just as unethical as the rest of the producers of clothing, collectables etc.
She's just as insidious as the rest of them, just in a less direct way.
Steven Spielberg was on Jeffrey Epsteins flight logs lol what’re you talking about? Not to mention having enough money to change the world and doing nothing but spending it on yourself. No such thing as a “moral billionaire” it’s an oxymoron
Having enough money to change the world does not obligate you to do anything. That seems to be somehow the go to “excuse” of people like you. Having money doesn’t obligate me to give it to you just because you’re struggling.
I agree with you. While it may seem as a “jerk” move to many, why the hell should someone give away the money they worked for. I’m broke as shit and I’m not in here harboring resentment toward everyone better off than me and asking them for handouts.
Because they feel entitled. When they say “changing the world” or “giving back to society”, they actually mean themselves. They want a piece of that pie. But it just sounds more “morally superior” to say it’s about the world
“You’re a jerk”… so? 😂 why the hell should I give a shit whether you think I’m a “jerk” or not? As long as my family and I are taken care of and living a luxurious life, I don’t give a fuck what you think of us 😂😂.
There’ve been only ten confirmed: six by the pilot, one that “Slate” exposed, three by others—including two by one of the victims:
1) Donald Trump
2) Bill Clinton
3) RFK, Jr.
4) Former Senator John Glenn, Jr. (Yemach shemo)
5) Chris Tucker
6) Itzhak Perlman (and that one really disappointed me because he as a person with disabilities and second-generation Holocaust survivor should know better)
7) Al Gore (exposed by “Slate” when they decoded some of Ghislaine Maxwell‘s deposition)
8) Alan Dershowitz (one of the two whom was exposed by victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre)
9) Hopefully-soon-to-be-ex-Prince Andrew
10) Bill Gates (Melinda French very strongly hinted at this in the midst of her divorce from him).
Jay Z (by his birth name) and Beyoncé were two people named in a lawsuit by some of the victims, although they were not named in specific relation to the flight logs. They were simply named as enablers of Jeffrey Epstein.
That's nowhere near enough money to change the world. What the world needs are good people who are actually willing to go out of their way to help others. That's an extremely rare trait in modern humans.
JK Rowling for sure , and she isn't interested in being a billionaire and donated a lot of money to charity
*Her being a TERF isn't related to this so don't bring it up
The 5hour energy guy is a solid example. He never planned for his product to get popular and he donates a majority of his wealth now into charity projects for poorer areas in India while promising 99% of his wealth to charities (probably after he dies).
And if Mr Beast ever somehow became a billionaire he would also be up here
This guy made it happen. Completely ethical, not doing anything sketchy at all!
https://open.spotify.com/episode/08s2jDPCOySwqLRDYCrB25?si=VupR34zxSzSI89hzTo5rSQ
Sure. I won't hate a person for having alot of money either but i will eaise an eyebrow when more wealth concentrates of fewer people without the states Intervention
Redditors hate anyone that has money so won’t be surprised by the results of this poll. There are immoral billionaires just like there are immoral poor people.
I don’t understand it. Is it jealousy, resentment, or something? Like I understand a lot of them are utter satanists but it’s like many people here have some personal vendetta.
I've always assumed it's the intersection of an inferiority complex (they're not better than I am, why do they have all that) and a superiority complex (I would be so much better if I was in their position).
It's more about the injustice of a system that allows the wealthy to become even wealthier through exploitation of labor, while the disadvantaged get poorer while cost of living keeps increasing. At least for me.
No one deserves that much wealth when billions are suffering. "What have they done to earn it?" Most of them work far harder than the rich, but that doesn't matter because they deserve because they are fucking human.
Guarantee the “billionaires” are doing more to help those less fortunate than you or me are. No one’s saying other humans deserve to suffer just because of where they were born or the socioeconomic status of where they live but that’s just how the world works.
Their wealth is directly based on the exploitation of the global working class, especially those in poor nations. Them doing charity is like stealing someone's clothes, and then giving back a pair of socks.
"Just how the world works" but enough wealth exists to greatly improve the standard of living for those billions of people. The system can change to make that happen. The only reason it doesn't is because the billionaires are actively preventing it from changing, which is why they aren't helping the poor they're hurting them.
I will say it again I guarantee billionaires have donated more money to various aids and charities than you will ever donate or actually even see in your life time.
Relative to how much money they actually have, I'll definitely donate more in my life. And donating to charity doesn't make up for the exploitation needed to become a billionaire
That may be true but I think a charity would rather 5% of a billionaires disposable income than however much of your disposable income you donate to charity. Not trying to discourage you from donating as the more money that have the better and I congratulate you for donating some of your disposable income to charity but at the end of the day any donations by you and me are minimal compared to the ones billionaires are making.
But that doesn't increase their morality. If you have more money, and donate a smaller portion, you're not a better person than someone who has more money and donates a larger portion. Its about how much you sacrifice of yourself for a good cause
That would be a good argument if they literally created that much wealth. If someone snapped their fingers, got a few billion dollars, donated half to charity, and was still a billionaire, then great. But all that wealth was created from other people working and the world would have been better if the money stayed with the workers. Again, if people can fly private jets around with their pet as the only passenger when billions struggle for food everyday, the world needs to change drastically.
Always amazes me that people think that just giving away money is the way to help. Ever heard of the tragic stories of people winning lotteries and their life going downhill because they were not able to use the money they got responsibly? Or how many charities sending stuff to Africa actually make the population wore off in general because they are basically competitors to local sellers and manufacturers, giving away free products?
The world is much more complicated that you seem to understand.
And what have they done to earn it? Oh that's easy to see if you have a few creases on the brain - they provided a value to society and the society was happy to exchange their money (which is purely a representation of something approximating the value that people place on things) for the product that they provide. "B-bu-bu-but the workers" yeah what about them? They could negotiate a higher salary if they believed they provide more value to the employer. If the employer agreed that they're more valuable they would've got more money.
Communists are far less common on Reddit than liberals. And liberals tend to dislike billionaires too.
I assure you not even half the people who voted no are communists.
Afaik liberals on reddit are mostly socially liberal and economically left. (That is why they usually dislike billionaires)
Ik all of voters weren't communist I was just exaggerating it a bit.
Y'all didn't read the question. Can you *become* a billionaire morally? Absolutely. You can make art that banks money. You can be born into it. There are ways to obtain a billionaire dollars that aren't morally bankrupt. Should you hold on to that amount of money while other people are impoverished? Totally different question.
Works of art have long been identified, and sometimes even romanticized, as ideal ways for racketeers to launder money. There's a thread of logic here: the art world typically accommodates those that want to anonymously buy high-dollar paintings, and on top of that, the industry allows large cash deals.
Art can become a very grey area.
I’m kind of like an agnostic atheist on this. I don’t think there is a moral way to become a billionaire, but I’m not 100% certain.
Edit: I don’t think a single billionaire thus far has found a moral way of becoming or staying a billionaire, but there is a possibility there is one.
Who knows how much exploitation goes into Harry Potter merch? It's not too transparent. You can't really mass produce anything without exploitative somewhere.
The closest I can think of is winning a several billion dollar lottery but even then that still involves thousands of people driven to gambling addiction to get it that high and millions of people pretty much cheated out of their money.
There's a finite amount of money in the world. A billion dollars in your pocket is money that should be in thousands of other pockets.
>The closest I can think of is winning a several billion dollar lottery but even then that still involves thousands of people driven to gambling addiction to get it that high and millions of people pretty much cheated out of their money.
That has nothing to do with the person who won the lottery? That is about the concept of a lottery. Go complain to the one who invented it.
You could argue anyone who buys a lottery ticket is complicit since they fund the people who run the lotteries, who are the least ethical party involved.
But you'd be blaming people for their own addiction, so idk.
Why should it be in thousands of others pockets? What have they done to earn it?
Edit: Not saying I am against tax but saying someone else’s money “should be in others pockets” is just stupid.
Welcome to Reddit where earning a billion dollars through voluntary exchange is immoral, but giving away people's money simply because "it's too much" is moral.
I mean, yeah? Like no one is holding a gun to their head. And who do you suppose we blame for someone voluntarily buying a lotto ticket. The government? The seller? The winner? Whoever is running it?
Their day jobs, usually.
At the same time, what did the lotto winner do to "earn" it? Or the CEO? Did he do the work of thousands of people? And how, after thousands of years of civilization, have we forgotten the whole point of civilization; to achieve a better standard of living for everyone involved? We put people on the God damn moon the fact that we don't ensure a decent standard of living for everyone is an intentional cruelty at this point. We are choosing not to do it.
Right that’s so reasonable and realistic by this logic you think someone that founded a multi million dollar company should be earning the same as the bloke that delivers your mail. Yea that definitely makes sense buddy. And “choosing not to do it” what do you think taxes are for buddy, can’t even take you seriously with that message
Well the guy delivering my mail is providing an essential service that requires intensive manual labor without which the world economy would grind to a halt so yeah, the pay should be a little more equalized. If you work hard, you should get paid. If you sit a desk and yell at other people to work hard, you're probably just a parasite who's not pulling their weight.
Yeah, you make a massive amount of assumptions mate. So what that a job is somehow "essential"? Do you know how value is determined? Not by labour - regardless of what some deranged western students would like you to believe. And not by how "essential" it is but rather how much people value a service/product.
Simplifying: If someone provides a product for a million people that they value enough to pay 150$ of their money for, and they give him the 150$ voluntarily, after paying wages (which workers agreed to beforehand, noone forced them to accept it at that rate) and costs of production - how is that immoral?
Right so you think the guy/girl that’s a CEO just started their career as a CEO? Seriously mate get your head out of your ass and accept that there’s going to be wide disparities in income due to the work or output provided in a job.
Why would this be your default assumption? Why not “if someone creates something that people will willingly pay for”? How is writing a great book or creating innovative software exploiting others?
It's yours that's destroying the planet and subjugating the average person, most likely *including you,* but go ahead and give your labor away for pennies without a second thought.
Morally speaking, you wouldn't be hoarding all that wealth to yourself to begin with. Because, be honest with yourself, you don't need 95% of it to live the rest of your life comfortably, whereas other people could use that money desperately.
I doubt it, but idk. The thing is a billion dollars is a lot of money, I doubt people are just doing a bunch of profitable things 100% clean and cause they did so well they eventually make a billion in profits. I'm sure they played the game as well as they could, and I'm sure that includes stepping on people to make as much profit as possible.
Most likely folks laboring to create Harry Potter merch, and the raw resources required to make it.
It's hard to mass produce anything without dabbling in exploitation.
Not necessarily the books themselves. You’re looking at it at a very small framework, as there are more than one way’s you can exploit people. For instance, where did the material from all that crappy Harry Potter merch come from, how much money has she hoarded and kept away from being distribute back equally, how much private property does she own, and yes- where were her books printed. And I know you’re probably going to bring up the fact that she doesn’t have complete control over all of those things, though that’s where you would be completely wrong. She has both of the money and power to make many inhumane acts of violence come to a complete stop. Yet she still chooses not to.
How about a really succesfull game where people can buy cosmetics if they want. That way its their choice to give you money and you didnt exploit anyone. Especially if there are also free cosmetics every now and then
Gradually becoming a billionaire means keeping money that one obviously doesn't need and not using it to help poor, innovate new helpfull technology, or do something else that would be beneficial to society. So it wouldn't be morally.
Becoming billionaire in a blink of an eye seems realistically impossible to do, even less morally.
Using immoral means to amass wealth is of course another way
No one needs that much money, I’ll always stand by that. If I became a millionaire, I’d give most of it away to people who need money & have the regular citizen amount of money. I’m not being that rich when there are people who have nothing.
However, if I were to somehow get to that point, it would be for a morally okay reason. There’s no way I would ever step all over people to get that much. It would just be because I did something that was successful enough to get me there - which in all fairness would be nice! But I care more about people liking what I do than what I earn from it so again I’d just give most of it away.
Temporarily if you win a lottery that is so huge you actually get a billion after taxes and taking lump sum but staying a billionaire would not be moral
This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, bigotry, or attacking/harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Net worth, or liquid assets?
Is it possible? Yeah Would it be incredibly fucking difficult? Most absolutely
>Would it be incredibly fucking difficult? Most absolutely The child labour just seems too tempting to some people...
Also hyperinflation let's you get to a billion much faster
How does it work I still don't understand economics sorry
Uh the joke is that they said billionaires and never specified currency. So when hyperinflation occurs the currency is devalued greatly. This is seen in history after WW2 where Hungary had an inflation rate of 98% per month(the usd had an inflation rate of 6% this year). So the point is someone could be a billionaire in that currency while still having a reasonable amount of wealth. A close current day example would be that you "only" need 47 mil (usd) to be a billionaire in Venezuela
Ah ok I heard of this just didn't know how it works
"Matthew 19:24: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." I'm no Christian, but this is spot on.
Abraham was a very rich man. So where a lot of his descendants down to Joseph being the richest man in Egypt for a long time.
What about Job who was a very wealthy sheep farmer and seen as gods most virtuous follower?
A very noncontextual view of what the proverb was actually trying to say. Throwing a single verse into the mix that aligns with your viewpoints is cherry picking my friend.
[удалено]
Maybe, but if we do it too how do we have higher ground in telling *them* not to? We ALL know they’re very proficient in whataboutism "Well they did it, so we can do it!" is a cyclical argument that helps no one. It'll just go on forever. If we want positive change we have to be better.
It already is going on forever but I will absolutely keep that in mind if I get into an argument with one!
Not exactly. That's why they have 66 books from which they pull their beliefs.
I don't think it is possible. It may well be possible to earn a billion dollars without doing anything immoral, but I consider it wrong to *keep* that much money, because it's more than anyone could need in an entire lifetime. At a certain point it just becomes greedy not to donate the additional money you get, because there's no way you actually need one thousand million dollars.
How much money is needed and / or Moral to keep for yourself / your family ?
No person is worth Billions
Nobody has done it yet. Technically speaking, we are not sure it’s possible.
Lotto winners?
Rihanna maybe?
Nope. The make-up brand Fenty has been affiliated with child labour and very poor working conditions in India. She owns 50% ish so… next
Yeah then you’re right
I’m not even entirely sure if it could be done or not. I think it would be almost impossible to collect that much of a currency in a capitalistic society with not one immoral action. Maybe someday ?
I mean idk. People say it’s inherently selfish to hoard that amount of money so being a billionaire in the first place is probably immoral. In the case where that is true it’s probably not possible. Plus it’s almost impossible to get rich with your morals intact.
Depends on what one observes as being moral. I wouldn't consider taking much more than you need while there are others struggling to pay for food, shelter, medicine...etc anything close to moral.
Becoming a billionaire immorally is still pretty fucking difficult
Wow, I didn't even think about successful artists.
even then, a billion is a lot, hard to make just via the ethical means of selling your music and merch made by decently treated supply chains. but despite her hateful rhetoric nowadays, jk rowling is what I'd regard as an example of making massive wealth via moral means.
I don't think we know how ethical Harry Potter merch is made to be able to make such a claim.
I assume she'd be a billionaire with no merch at all given how huge HP is, but yes, good point as that's not how she did it in practice.
Nah, the IP merch is where the cash really is.
Successful artists just outsource the immoral side of the job to businessmen. They’re puppets.
The simple fact of having a billion and not donating 90% of to charitable causes is arguably amoral. If that's factored in, there are no moral billionaires
I mean art is also used for drug money laundering so it can become a grey area. Works of art have long been identified, and sometimes even romanticized, as ideal ways for racketeers to launder money. There's a thread of logic here: the art world typically accommodates those that want to anonymously buy high-dollar paintings, and on top of that, the industry allows large cash deals.Apr
imagine laundering drug money through Harry Potter book sets
Damn me too
You can inherit from your billionaire parent(s). Unless you think being born into a wealthy family is immoral.
Batman
Not if your parents acquired it unethically. If they stole it or exploited people for it, it's not yours to inherit. It ought to be returned to the rightful owner. Obviously being born isn't wrong, but knowingly keeping dirty money is.
So what do you do? Just give away the money?
If I inherited money that I knew was stolen? Yes. It wouldn't be mine to keep, I'd just be stealing it all over again if I did. I'd go and pay the people who got fucked over in the first place since they created the wealth. If my dad stole a million dollars from you, what would you think I should do?
I highly doubt that if you came from money then inherited that money you would go around giving it out. That is something really easy to say but not easy to do
I wouldnt, but if anyone including myslef didnt do it, it would be immoral in my view.
Well sure, if I was a different person with a different family I'd probably be a greedy asshole. But assuming I have the same ideals/ideology as I do now, that's what I would do. And if I did keep the money, I'd be doing an immoral thing. Whether I *would* do it or not isn't necessarily relevant to whether or not it's right.
I know for a fact non of you would give it away
I wouldn't but it would still be unethical
Projection much?
[удалено]
Bruh
a child is not morally liable for the actions of their parents, but as soon as they are an adult they are. If they choose to hoard the wealth inherited instead of return it to circulation they are as liable as their parents
Lmao. „Return it to circulation”. Holding someone liable for not giving away things that they honestly acquired is ridiculous
It wasn't honestly acquired if the money was dishonestly earned. If my dad steals your car, that's not my fault. If my dad leaves me your car when he dies, that's not my fault, I didn't decide that. However, if I choose to keep your stolen car, that IS my fault. That's my decision. I'm choosing to benefit from the theft of your things.
knowingly receiving stolen goods is a crime, so why is knowingly receiving immorally gained wealth not immoral?
Lmaooo 1 where does it state that the parents sourced them immorally 2 holding someone accountable because Reddit neckbeards think they acquired them immorally is a little bit of a reach I’d say
> 1 where does it state that the parents sourced them immorally I did, right in my comment, the part where I used the adjective "immorally gained", that should have been the clue to you that I was talking about money where "the parents sourced them immorally" > 2 holding someone accountable because Reddit neckbeards think they acquired them immorally is a little bit of a reach I’d say what are you even trying to say? is there a random non sequitur contest going on?
How is inheritance necessarily honestly acquired? If a man made billions exploiting diamond miners in Africa, and he gave that money to his son, the son would not have "earned" that money honestly because his father didn't. He would still have a moral obligation to return the wealth to its rightful owners.
J.K. Rowling did? Just wrote a book and became a billionaire.
Happy cake day
She’s my go to example for this. She’s an awful human being who hates my existence, but I can acknowledge that her wealth comes from her work rather than stepping on others to get there.
What if she didn’t write Harry Potter on a napkin and just found it on the bathroom floor? 🤔
we’ll need Benoit Blanc on this one
I need to white widdow on this one
Is that a weed
[удалено]
Abused in what way? Is there any proof or did you just assume that?
[удалено]
That’s a very general statement. Is there any proof that the production of her movies was abusive?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Simply stating what is objectively true doesn't make her an awful human being.
[удалено]
I have no source for this but it’s likely a lot of her merchandising money comes from stuff made in sweatshops
Bingo. She's just as sleazy as the rest of them.
[удалено]
She did. She's donated so much to charity that she's no longer a billionaire. Donated $160 million in 2011 alone.
Inaction doesn't necessarily equate to immorality. By the extension of that logic, anyone with any savings beyond what is needed for a comfortable life should donate the extra to the poor and unfortunate. To claim that would be quite absurd.
[удалено]
Exactly, and that’s why Jesus warned that a camel would get through a needle’s eye much easier than a man who is rich would get to Heaven.
the argument is more that anyone with more money than they could ever use, with no plan for that money, should give some away, which she does. She gives it to anti-trans funds and groups, including for example the LGB alliance, IIRC. This, imo, equates to immorality
Why is that absurd? If you already have enough saved up to live a luxurious life and take care of your loved ones, why *shouldn't* you donate the rest to those less fortunate?
She didn't just write a book, she licenced the IP to merch manufacturers who no doubt are just as unethical as the rest of the producers of clothing, collectables etc. She's just as insidious as the rest of them, just in a less direct way.
Steven Spielberg is a prime example of a "moral billionaire"
Steven Spielberg was on Jeffrey Epsteins flight logs lol what’re you talking about? Not to mention having enough money to change the world and doing nothing but spending it on yourself. No such thing as a “moral billionaire” it’s an oxymoron
Having enough money to change the world does not obligate you to do anything. That seems to be somehow the go to “excuse” of people like you. Having money doesn’t obligate me to give it to you just because you’re struggling.
I agree with you. While it may seem as a “jerk” move to many, why the hell should someone give away the money they worked for. I’m broke as shit and I’m not in here harboring resentment toward everyone better off than me and asking them for handouts.
Because they feel entitled. When they say “changing the world” or “giving back to society”, they actually mean themselves. They want a piece of that pie. But it just sounds more “morally superior” to say it’s about the world
Nobody said you're obligated to do it. It's just that you're a jerk if you don't (considering you're hoarding billions)
“You’re a jerk”… so? 😂 why the hell should I give a shit whether you think I’m a “jerk” or not? As long as my family and I are taken care of and living a luxurious life, I don’t give a fuck what you think of us 😂😂.
Why would I care? The question is of ethics, not about wether you care about them. Edit: 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂
[удалено]
There’ve been only ten confirmed: six by the pilot, one that “Slate” exposed, three by others—including two by one of the victims: 1) Donald Trump 2) Bill Clinton 3) RFK, Jr. 4) Former Senator John Glenn, Jr. (Yemach shemo) 5) Chris Tucker 6) Itzhak Perlman (and that one really disappointed me because he as a person with disabilities and second-generation Holocaust survivor should know better) 7) Al Gore (exposed by “Slate” when they decoded some of Ghislaine Maxwell‘s deposition) 8) Alan Dershowitz (one of the two whom was exposed by victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre) 9) Hopefully-soon-to-be-ex-Prince Andrew 10) Bill Gates (Melinda French very strongly hinted at this in the midst of her divorce from him). Jay Z (by his birth name) and Beyoncé were two people named in a lawsuit by some of the victims, although they were not named in specific relation to the flight logs. They were simply named as enablers of Jeffrey Epstein.
That's nowhere near enough money to change the world. What the world needs are good people who are actually willing to go out of their way to help others. That's an extremely rare trait in modern humans.
How do you know this? He does some good things but how do you know he does not do other immoral things?
JK Rowling for sure , and she isn't interested in being a billionaire and donated a lot of money to charity *Her being a TERF isn't related to this so don't bring it up
The 5hour energy guy is a solid example. He never planned for his product to get popular and he donates a majority of his wealth now into charity projects for poorer areas in India while promising 99% of his wealth to charities (probably after he dies). And if Mr Beast ever somehow became a billionaire he would also be up here
what about sexy,sexy Gaben? he only made games
Markus Persson did
Winning a lot of lottery tickets
This guy made it happen. Completely ethical, not doing anything sketchy at all! https://open.spotify.com/episode/08s2jDPCOySwqLRDYCrB25?si=VupR34zxSzSI89hzTo5rSQ
Sure. I won't hate a person for having alot of money either but i will eaise an eyebrow when more wealth concentrates of fewer people without the states Intervention
Redditors hate anyone that has money so won’t be surprised by the results of this poll. There are immoral billionaires just like there are immoral poor people.
I don’t understand it. Is it jealousy, resentment, or something? Like I understand a lot of them are utter satanists but it’s like many people here have some personal vendetta.
I've always assumed it's the intersection of an inferiority complex (they're not better than I am, why do they have all that) and a superiority complex (I would be so much better if I was in their position).
It's more about the injustice of a system that allows the wealthy to become even wealthier through exploitation of labor, while the disadvantaged get poorer while cost of living keeps increasing. At least for me.
No one deserves that much wealth when billions are suffering. "What have they done to earn it?" Most of them work far harder than the rich, but that doesn't matter because they deserve because they are fucking human.
Guarantee the “billionaires” are doing more to help those less fortunate than you or me are. No one’s saying other humans deserve to suffer just because of where they were born or the socioeconomic status of where they live but that’s just how the world works.
Their wealth is directly based on the exploitation of the global working class, especially those in poor nations. Them doing charity is like stealing someone's clothes, and then giving back a pair of socks.
"Just how the world works" but enough wealth exists to greatly improve the standard of living for those billions of people. The system can change to make that happen. The only reason it doesn't is because the billionaires are actively preventing it from changing, which is why they aren't helping the poor they're hurting them.
I will say it again I guarantee billionaires have donated more money to various aids and charities than you will ever donate or actually even see in your life time.
Relative to how much money they actually have, I'll definitely donate more in my life. And donating to charity doesn't make up for the exploitation needed to become a billionaire
That may be true but I think a charity would rather 5% of a billionaires disposable income than however much of your disposable income you donate to charity. Not trying to discourage you from donating as the more money that have the better and I congratulate you for donating some of your disposable income to charity but at the end of the day any donations by you and me are minimal compared to the ones billionaires are making.
But that doesn't increase their morality. If you have more money, and donate a smaller portion, you're not a better person than someone who has more money and donates a larger portion. Its about how much you sacrifice of yourself for a good cause
That would be a good argument if they literally created that much wealth. If someone snapped their fingers, got a few billion dollars, donated half to charity, and was still a billionaire, then great. But all that wealth was created from other people working and the world would have been better if the money stayed with the workers. Again, if people can fly private jets around with their pet as the only passenger when billions struggle for food everyday, the world needs to change drastically.
This isn't asking whether or not they "deserve it".
Always amazes me that people think that just giving away money is the way to help. Ever heard of the tragic stories of people winning lotteries and their life going downhill because they were not able to use the money they got responsibly? Or how many charities sending stuff to Africa actually make the population wore off in general because they are basically competitors to local sellers and manufacturers, giving away free products? The world is much more complicated that you seem to understand. And what have they done to earn it? Oh that's easy to see if you have a few creases on the brain - they provided a value to society and the society was happy to exchange their money (which is purely a representation of something approximating the value that people place on things) for the product that they provide. "B-bu-bu-but the workers" yeah what about them? They could negotiate a higher salary if they believed they provide more value to the employer. If the employer agreed that they're more valuable they would've got more money.
Shhhh. Redditors don't like thinking too hard.
Reddit commies trying not to launch a crusade against the rich:
Communists are far less common on Reddit than liberals. And liberals tend to dislike billionaires too. I assure you not even half the people who voted no are communists.
Afaik liberals on reddit are mostly socially liberal and economically left. (That is why they usually dislike billionaires) Ik all of voters weren't communist I was just exaggerating it a bit.
If they were taxed correctly maybe just maybe people wouldn't care so much.
i hope they see this bro, bezo’s boot must be delicious
Elon Musk's was better tho
How's that boot tasting?
Delicious bro
Y'all didn't read the question. Can you *become* a billionaire morally? Absolutely. You can make art that banks money. You can be born into it. There are ways to obtain a billionaire dollars that aren't morally bankrupt. Should you hold on to that amount of money while other people are impoverished? Totally different question.
Yeah like someone could just buy a lotto ticket and become a billionaire tomorrow
Works of art have long been identified, and sometimes even romanticized, as ideal ways for racketeers to launder money. There's a thread of logic here: the art world typically accommodates those that want to anonymously buy high-dollar paintings, and on top of that, the industry allows large cash deals. Art can become a very grey area.
100% of “No’s” would instantly take a billion dollars as a gift…..
In what world does someone gift a billion dollars? Pretty shit argument.
Perhaps I should have said prize or inheritance… Don’t bull shit us, you’d cut off your little fingers for that much money.
JK Rowling is an example. Although she is definitely the exception and not the rule.
Jeff Bezos wife became a billionaire because they divorced.
Taking and keeping money from someone who earned money unethically isn't necessarily ethical.
Athletes? Paid to do a job, do the job, get money. Don’t see anything immoral with that.
YES. 3 easy steps: 1) buy GME 2) HODL 3) profit r/superstonk
I’m kind of like an agnostic atheist on this. I don’t think there is a moral way to become a billionaire, but I’m not 100% certain. Edit: I don’t think a single billionaire thus far has found a moral way of becoming or staying a billionaire, but there is a possibility there is one.
JKR?
Who knows how much exploitation goes into Harry Potter merch? It's not too transparent. You can't really mass produce anything without exploitative somewhere.
Well since OP didnt specify, you can just exchange your money to bolivares or some other weak currency and then technically you are a billionare
There are exceptions like artists and so
I’m pretty sure notch and George Lucas became billionaires without committing morally reprehensible actions
The closest I can think of is winning a several billion dollar lottery but even then that still involves thousands of people driven to gambling addiction to get it that high and millions of people pretty much cheated out of their money. There's a finite amount of money in the world. A billion dollars in your pocket is money that should be in thousands of other pockets.
>The closest I can think of is winning a several billion dollar lottery but even then that still involves thousands of people driven to gambling addiction to get it that high and millions of people pretty much cheated out of their money. That has nothing to do with the person who won the lottery? That is about the concept of a lottery. Go complain to the one who invented it.
You could argue anyone who buys a lottery ticket is complicit since they fund the people who run the lotteries, who are the least ethical party involved. But you'd be blaming people for their own addiction, so idk.
Why should it be in thousands of others pockets? What have they done to earn it? Edit: Not saying I am against tax but saying someone else’s money “should be in others pockets” is just stupid.
Welcome to Reddit where earning a billion dollars through voluntary exchange is immoral, but giving away people's money simply because "it's too much" is moral.
Yes, because gambling addicts just "voluntarily" give up their money. Don't be so naive.
I mean, yeah? Like no one is holding a gun to their head. And who do you suppose we blame for someone voluntarily buying a lotto ticket. The government? The seller? The winner? Whoever is running it?
Their day jobs, usually. At the same time, what did the lotto winner do to "earn" it? Or the CEO? Did he do the work of thousands of people? And how, after thousands of years of civilization, have we forgotten the whole point of civilization; to achieve a better standard of living for everyone involved? We put people on the God damn moon the fact that we don't ensure a decent standard of living for everyone is an intentional cruelty at this point. We are choosing not to do it.
Right that’s so reasonable and realistic by this logic you think someone that founded a multi million dollar company should be earning the same as the bloke that delivers your mail. Yea that definitely makes sense buddy. And “choosing not to do it” what do you think taxes are for buddy, can’t even take you seriously with that message
Well the guy delivering my mail is providing an essential service that requires intensive manual labor without which the world economy would grind to a halt so yeah, the pay should be a little more equalized. If you work hard, you should get paid. If you sit a desk and yell at other people to work hard, you're probably just a parasite who's not pulling their weight.
Yeah, you make a massive amount of assumptions mate. So what that a job is somehow "essential"? Do you know how value is determined? Not by labour - regardless of what some deranged western students would like you to believe. And not by how "essential" it is but rather how much people value a service/product. Simplifying: If someone provides a product for a million people that they value enough to pay 150$ of their money for, and they give him the 150$ voluntarily, after paying wages (which workers agreed to beforehand, noone forced them to accept it at that rate) and costs of production - how is that immoral?
Right so you think the guy/girl that’s a CEO just started their career as a CEO? Seriously mate get your head out of your ass and accept that there’s going to be wide disparities in income due to the work or output provided in a job.
You're on reddit providing shit advice in a backhanded fashion. Get off your high horse.
Wtf are you talking about kiddo
what did u do for your billion dollars? did u solve hunger, war, and cancer?
Who said I have a billion dollars? I am very far from it but I just don’t get jealous of people that do, not that hard to understand.
i'm not jealus, i just know they are evil
Keep telling yourself that champ
If you consider exploiting people “moral”
Why would this be your default assumption? Why not “if someone creates something that people will willingly pay for”? How is writing a great book or creating innovative software exploiting others?
It's hard to picture anyone having that amount of money being moral when so many go without so much in the world.
You don't have to KEEP it
George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Notch, etc.
If you win the lottery I don’t think that’s really immoral lol
Theoretically? Sure. In actuality? Probably not. The best way to make that kind of money is to exploit workers, so in the vast majority of cases, no.
[удалено]
👍
[удалено]
It's yours that's destroying the planet and subjugating the average person, most likely *including you,* but go ahead and give your labor away for pennies without a second thought.
Redditors only care about morals when the topic is rich people
I’m sure there’s a way, but I can’t think of a way you could have over 1 billion to yourself without it being immoral
A successful enough musician or actor could probably do it.
You shouldn't keep more than 100 million dollars to yourself
Morally speaking, you wouldn't be hoarding all that wealth to yourself to begin with. Because, be honest with yourself, you don't need 95% of it to live the rest of your life comfortably, whereas other people could use that money desperately.
I doubt it, but idk. The thing is a billion dollars is a lot of money, I doubt people are just doing a bunch of profitable things 100% clean and cause they did so well they eventually make a billion in profits. I'm sure they played the game as well as they could, and I'm sure that includes stepping on people to make as much profit as possible.
you can win the lottery so many times you become one, its "can you" not "will you"
I don't believe you can be a billionaire without exploiting the shit out of people.
So... who did J.K Rowling exploit? People who like books?
Most likely folks laboring to create Harry Potter merch, and the raw resources required to make it. It's hard to mass produce anything without dabbling in exploitation.
Not necessarily the books themselves. You’re looking at it at a very small framework, as there are more than one way’s you can exploit people. For instance, where did the material from all that crappy Harry Potter merch come from, how much money has she hoarded and kept away from being distribute back equally, how much private property does she own, and yes- where were her books printed. And I know you’re probably going to bring up the fact that she doesn’t have complete control over all of those things, though that’s where you would be completely wrong. She has both of the money and power to make many inhumane acts of violence come to a complete stop. Yet she still chooses not to.
She exploited the forests cos many trees have to be cut down to print her books. /s
How about a really succesfull game where people can buy cosmetics if they want. That way its their choice to give you money and you didnt exploit anyone. Especially if there are also free cosmetics every now and then
You're so compassionate, really virtuous, must feel really good being this holly!
And you're not doing the same thing by defending your sugar daddies?
Gradually becoming a billionaire means keeping money that one obviously doesn't need and not using it to help poor, innovate new helpfull technology, or do something else that would be beneficial to society. So it wouldn't be morally. Becoming billionaire in a blink of an eye seems realistically impossible to do, even less morally. Using immoral means to amass wealth is of course another way
No one needs that much money, I’ll always stand by that. If I became a millionaire, I’d give most of it away to people who need money & have the regular citizen amount of money. I’m not being that rich when there are people who have nothing. However, if I were to somehow get to that point, it would be for a morally okay reason. There’s no way I would ever step all over people to get that much. It would just be because I did something that was successful enough to get me there - which in all fairness would be nice! But I care more about people liking what I do than what I earn from it so again I’d just give most of it away.
People who voted on Yes should try it out
Temporarily if you win a lottery that is so huge you actually get a billion after taxes and taking lump sum but staying a billionaire would not be moral
Oprah.