How much money does one person really need? There’s clearly a minimum survivable income (enough to pay for food, a roof over one’s head, and maybe a bit stashed away for a rainy day) but should there also be a maximum?

Can money buy happiness? One 2019 study, published in the journal Nature, suggests that happiness does not “rise indefinitely with income”, and there is a “point at which higher income no longer leads to greater wellbeing”. The team at Purdue University which conducted the research concluded that the “income satiation” point was around €55,000 a year in terms of achieving maximum emotional wellbeing.

Yet why do we still strive for more? The number of billionaires in the world has increased by 358% since the year 2000, ballooning from 470 at the turn of the millennium to 2,153 today. The richest man in the world – Amazon boss Jeff Bezos – makes more than $8 million an hour. That’s roughly 315 times more than the median Amazon employee earns per year. Yet, like many other large corporations, his company is criticised for paying relatively little tax compared to its size. Can that be fair?

The classic argument goes that billionaires are entrepreneurial, creating innovations and jobs benefiting us all in their pursuit of wealth. Plus, increasing taxes on billionaires will just see them move their wealth elsewhere, investing in other countries and economies.

What do our readers think? We received a comment from Andreu asking whether it is fair that, as Oxfam reports, 26 billionaires have as much combined wealth as the poorest 50% of people on the planet.

To get a response to Andreu’s question, we spoke to Enrico Bergamini, research assistant at the think-tank Bruegel, whose research focus includes inequality. What would he say?

There aren’t a lot of people (including economists) who would say this is fair. The more you look at how skewed the distribution is, and the more you realise how wide the gap in wealth is, the less justifiable this incredible accumulation seems. Although, to be sure, it’s nothing new if you take a very long timespan of more than 100 years.

For me, there are two questions that are even more scandalous than the distribution itself. If you want to make a moral judgement on whether it is fair or not, the first question is: how did they make that money? Is it because they created something very cool and innovative that people love and use, and is a real value creation? Because, then you might say they ‘deserve’ that money. Or, to what extent is it that partly they were innovative but also that they enjoy monopoly rents or a dominant position in the market?

For me, an even more scandalous question is why these 26 people are paying an effective lower tax rate than you and I are paying? That’s the real key issue. Why do they pay less taxes than we do? That’s not about taking a stance on how much money they have, it’s about saying everybody should pay their own fair share.

For another perspective, we also put Andreu’s comment to Dietmar Bartsch, a member of the German Bundestag and co-leader of the leftwing Die Linke party’s parliamentary group. What would he say?

The answer is very easy, of course: it is not fair, because nobody can achieve such a fortune just through their performance alone. Above all, it is not fair while a child under the age of four starves to death every seven seconds somewhere in the world. That is why it is the task of politics to make changes worldwide… For example, we need a financial transactions tax, a cap on wealth, and redistribution is urgently needed. We believe that the current situation, with starving people in poverty on the one hand and immeasurable wealth on the other hand, is unacceptable. Action must be taken urgently.

For another perspective, we spoke to another member of the German Bundestag: social democrat Lothar Binding. What would he say to Andreu?

No, that’s not fair at all. That’s why we, the social democrats (SPD), have been considering a wealth tax in Germany for a very long time. But Andreu’s question is global in nature, so it would be wise for us to make policies globally that reduce this concentration of wealth in the hands of individuals.

Wealth is essentially about who has it. It is not about personal consumption or need – at some point everyone is fed and owns a villa and a plane, and more than that does not really make you happier. When we are talking about wealth, we have to think about power structures and how much more opportunities rich people have because they can take greater risks without fear. The interest in wealth has long been in the interest of power over people and material… I am in favour of reversing some of the privatisation we have seen, and sharing the world’s most important resources.

Next up, we had a comment sent in from Julia, who believes nobody needs assets worth over a billion. Should individuals’ wealth be capped below one billion? How would that even work in practice?

How would Dietmar Bartsch respond to Julia’s question?

I am in favour of limiting assets, especially since the situation is such that most of this wealth has been inherited. I am not in favour of mass expropriation of wealth, but instead would like to see a reasonable inheritance tax.

It cannot be the case that some children are born today who can hardly spend their inherited fortune over the course of their lives while, on the other hand, other children have to live in poverty. Every child has the right to develop their skills. That is why I am in favour of us doing everything we can to combat poverty. But that must go hand-in-hand with limiting wealth.

It is therefore an absurdity for me if board members of DAX companies in Germany earn 60 or 70 times what the employees get. We could address this through legal regulations. If, for example, the average income is 3000 euros, the board could get 20 times, i.e. 60,000 euros a month. I think that’s appropriate. We have to limit this insanity and make sure that there is no more poverty on this planet.

Should billionaires exist? How much money does one person really need?Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

Image Credits: Flickr (CC BY 2.0) James Duncan Davidson; Portraits: Bergamini (c) Støkk Studio, Bartsch (c) DBT, Inga Haar & Binding (c) SPD-Parteivorstand, Susie Knoll


130 comments Post a commentcomment


  1. avatar
    Chris

    Depends if they pay their fair share of tax

    • avatar
      PowerJohn

      It is ridiculously how many people think that the billionaires being rich makes the other people poor. While this seems to be true at first you have to take a closer look: They are rich, because their company stock went up not because they took money from the poor. And it makes sense if you know anything about the stock market that if your stock climbs up you shouldn’t be taxed as much. So by what we have seen they are not a negative for our society at least.
      The money they get from the stock going up is money invested by investors willingly in hope of profit so the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer is not a correlation but just a coincidence.
      And they may not deserve their money, but allowing billionaires to millionaires encourages lots of entrepreneurs that change and innovate the country. So we have seen that billionaires are a plus and not a negative.
      They can even be a bigger plus because most of them give lots of money(small percentage of their fortune, but big neverthless) which makes the world a better place. (they didn’t have that money I am sure it wouldn’t have been used in the way they used it).

    • avatar
      Elyssa

      PowerJohn, there’s a tax when you buy or sell anything, why should that be any different for buying and selling stocks? Anyway, big corporations often receive tax breaks, especially in the USA, which ultimately leads to less money being able to be distributed among schools, hospitals, benefits, etc.
      I’m not saying people shouldn’t be rich, I’m just against some people being SO excessively rich.

    • avatar
      Alexandra Voganatsi

      Democracy should not be limited to voting. Economy has to have a democratic structure.
      A perfect democracy doesn’t have neither too rich nor too poor citizens.

  2. avatar
    Любомир

    Of course they should. Poverty shouldn’t exist. And it has been declining at an unprecedented speed for the past 30 years. Stop looking in other people’s plates and trying to blame the rich for every problem in the world. Especially for problems that are actually being solved as we speak. Sources below:
    https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
    https://www.worldvision.org/sponsors…/global-poverty-facts

    • avatar
      Elyssa

      “Of course they should” — But… if Jeff Bezos liquidated some of his stocks he could end world hunger. He and so many other billionaires CHOOSE not to use their wealth and power for good – most haven’t even signed the Giving Pledge!
      “being solved” — I am aware that a lot of poverty has been caused by colonialism, war and conflict, and government corruption, BUT these problems could be solved sooner if people (especially the very wealthy and politicians) were less selfish or lazy.

    • avatar
      Daniel G

      Elyssa,

      Billionaires like Jeff Bezos do liquidate their stock. Jeff Bezos founded Amazon, but he has continuously sold off his stock as it grew. He only owns about 10% of Amazon now. But that 10% is still worth $200bn. If he sold any more he wouldn’t have any control in his own business anymore

  3. avatar
    Raquel

    They might born billionaire or rich but, it is their fault if they die like that.

  4. avatar
    Христо

    There are no ethical ways to become rich. Working hard can only get you to the upper middle class. Tax the rich!

  5. avatar
    Social biped

    – they shoul pay taxes like everybody else , if society decides progressive taxation is needed then ok .
    -lobby activities should be forbidden ! why should the rich have pr at the doors of european or national politicians!

  6. avatar
    Andrew

    When there is such devastating poverty in so many places then no they shouldnt exist. Saying that though if someone had 10billion and were taxed at 80% they still have more money than they could ever need for generations to come. Basically tax the rich.

    • avatar
      Marius

      Then they would have no incentive to innovate and we would not have iphones, drugs, etc. Better tax the inheritance

    • avatar
      Andrew

      so having 2billion isnt an incentive? They would still be stinking rich. There are lots of ways of getting around inheritance tax.

    • avatar
      Elyssa

      80% tax = rich people store their money abroad to avoid this tax…

  7. avatar
    Pedro

    Of course not. Nobody can work as much in their life in order to “earn” being a billionaire. And specially with so many people living on poverty.

  8. avatar
    Karel

    Make the poor rich, leave the rich alone.

  9. avatar
    Maria

    Why not? Get the Hell out of Socialists ideas

    • avatar
      Ricardo

      you must be rich… You are certainly not in amaz*** 0 hours contract…

    • avatar
      Maria

      I am rich, I have ideas, I use my brain

    • avatar
      Maia Alexandrova

      The question is do you use your heart enough or has money turned it into a stone already…

  10. avatar
    Rajesh

    Reduce the waste of resources in the Europeam parliament and cut the fat out

  11. avatar
    Παυλος

    Money are meant to move from hands to hands, no one should control so much capital

  12. avatar
    Lorenz

    What kind of question that is :D what’s the benefit of a billionaire?

    • avatar
      Debating Europe

      Hi Lorenz, according to Oxfam, 26 billionaires have as much combined wealth as the poorest 50% of people on the planet. Should individuals’ wealth be capped below one billion? What do you think?

    • avatar
      Yannick

      I think his answer is between the lines clear nevertheless: there’s no wider benefit to society to concentrate wealth to a single person.

    • avatar
      Lorenz

      thanks they’re not to good on rhetorical questions obviously…

  13. avatar
    Constantin

    That’s quite a stupid question

  14. avatar
    Maby

    They exist, actually… So, let them be, but tax them accordingly their wealth, and redistribute it…

    • avatar
      Sundous

      Yeah I think so too. You can’t take someones wealth from them but you can tax them accordingly

  15. avatar
    Γεώργιος

    Should poverty EXIST? Of course not and is responsibility of everyone

  16. avatar
    David

    As long as its earned honestly

  17. avatar
    Fer

    This is a consequence of the greedy – unequal – corrupt – bullshit system they feed us with called democracy lead by the most I’ll prepared leaders ever In history. It will only get worse.

    • avatar
      sundous

      Yeah, in my opinion there is no such thing as democracy. It may look that we choose our leaders but they are only puppets and figures for society. There are always more old white men that control us and know every single thing we do.

  18. avatar
    Constantin

    Stalin and Lenin’s followers will agree that Billionaires shouldn’t exist, except communist party members, as they were in ussr

    • avatar
      Γεώργιος

      Illusions blind your mind

    • avatar
      Constantin

      did you comment in the correct post? :D

    • avatar
      Maia Alexandrova

      Constantin, let’s leave Lenin and Stalin’s followers alone – they are dead. Nowadays we have followers of love and followers of greed.

    • avatar
      Fabio Henriques

      Followers of love? 😂😂 what planet do you live, honey?

  19. avatar
    Skender

    Poor shouldnt exist,in that case i dont care if there is billionaire.My answer no ,there should be limit of wealth,after that limit all money goes to special fonds from where poorest take bennefits

    • avatar
      Christian

      Nonsense

    • avatar
      Maia Alexandrova

      Skender, I totally agree with you. Greed should not be tolerated and encouraged. Too much money kills compassion for others and in this world love and compassion are what is needed most. It is not natural to have extreme inequalities. Balance is needed.

  20. avatar
    Matthew

    Hmm. It’s a tough call, but I think I’d rather keep the billionaires (most of whom are big job creators and therefore actually help reduce poverty) and get rid of the politicians and busybodies who just talk about getting rid of poverty with somebody else’s money and who think it’s their business to decide how much money someone makes.

    • avatar
      sundous

      If somebody is a billionaire you can’t blame them for poverty but you can blame them for evading taxes and not paying their company taxes. But I do agree with you in the sense that we wouldn’t have things such as Microsoft, Teslas e.t.c. Its much easier for those politicians to talk about ending poverty rather than actually doing something.

  21. avatar
    Markus

    What most don’t understand is the difference between net worth and actual cash at hand. Most entrepreneurs (and that’s what billionaires usually are) hold illiquid stock in the companies they created.
    So they took extreme risks – the kind of risk most people don’t dare to take as they prefer their cushy jobs – and created something highly innovative and/or at least very valuable for their customers and as a consequence of pushing through all kinds of entrepreneurial and often therewith also personal hardships and challenges the value of their companies (aka the stock price) has been rising to the billions.
    Does that mean they have large amounts of cash? No, because most of the time we are talking about privately held and thus illiquid stocks, which again means that they are asset rich but cash poor. (hence wealth taxes might potentially bankrupt them and destroy their companies with all the jobs they created).
    Just try buying a piece of bread with private company stock and you’ll see how ridiculous this whole discussion is.
    And that’s important to understand before talking about taxes and other stuff.
    What’s worth considering though is an inheritance tax as that’s where a natural transfer of these illiquid stocks happens anyway. However, this inheritance tax should be based on the actual achievable sales price of the company (company sales at this point are usually a good thing since science clearly proofs that the own children are usually not the best successors) and not just some approximation in the form of hypothetical net worth calculations which can be played up and down if you understand finance. Sales at that point are almost always possible (its just a matter of pricing and how you structure the transaction) and easier compared to founders selling their stock during their lifetime (the point here is called a signaling effect -> why does the person who has the most insider knowledge sell? -> thus potential buyers propensity to buy company stock declines whereas the case with heirs is more straight forward and logical).

    • avatar
      Laurent

      your answer is quite straightforward: when you are poor, money is not your business.
      You start by acknowledging that the poors don’t understand the liquidity of the rich’s wealth, thus they don’t understand what being rich in capital means (you also say how poor they are in terms of cash…)
      Let me put it this way: whether the wealth is liquid or not, it remains power. The democratic issue is to let go this highly concentrated power or not. It doesn’t have to do with the liquidity.
      The share value that could be taken out of the top 0.01% , given to the poorest, and you will see, the poor will be able to make money out of that illiquid wealth.
      I think the question is not a bad question at all.

    • avatar
      Ricardo

      let me laugh again! Poor guys, driving Bentley’s and flying in private jets… You need to go out and check how poor some people are, some of them working more then 16 Hours a Day!

  22. avatar
    Jeroen

    Should or shouldnt… its a logical necessity waiting to happen.

  23. avatar
    Luigi

    It’s not that they are rich, but that so many are so poor, nearly 1.5 billion people without clean drinking water – drinking water!

  24. avatar
    Laurent

    I believe many people think: it should exist because ‘you never know, it could happen to me’
    This myth is just outrageously strong.

  25. avatar
    Enric

    If they earn their money honestly, why not?…

    • avatar
      Elyssa

      Because in order to become that wealthy, many people have not earned their money honestly, whether that’s because they don’t pay as much tax as they should, or because they pay workers minimum wage when the company could afford to pay them living wage.

  26. avatar
    Paul

    Without, what would millionaires aspire to ?

    • avatar
      sundous

      Millionaires don’t need to aspire to be anything. Why can’t they just be content with the millions of dollars that they already have. It seems to me that the only thing people aspire to be is richer than they already are.

  27. avatar
    Christian

    A billionaire creates jobs in shipbuilding, rolls Royce cars and Ferrari and Lamborghini. They create jobs in the building industry mansion building and maintenance, and tgey create jobs for all the people who work for them

    • avatar
      Laurent

      it’s not because they are billionaires that they create job. It’s the other way around.
      We will always need entrepreneurs, and there will still be entrepreneurs, even if becoming billionaire is not an endpoint. Indeed, true entrepreneurs want to create value for the world, not value from the world.

    • avatar
      Christian

      it’s not because they are billionaires that they create job. It’s the other way around.
      We will always need entrepreneurs, and there will still be entrepreneurs, even if becoming billionaire is not an endpoint. Indeed, true entrepreneurs want to create value for the world, not value from the world.

    • avatar
      Ricardo

      Chopin they are so nice, paying 0 hours contracts!!!??? Exploring their employees? Be honest please, they are well rich, because they explore others, not because they have amazing ideas

  28. avatar
    Ricardo

    When someone can buy a 500 000 car in cash, worth more then a life salary of poor people it’s all said… When someone has a boat more expensive then someone’s house, or even lots of people without one, it’s all said… Make the world better, more fair, without this huge difference…

  29. avatar
    Ljubomir

    In a weird sense – the existence of billionaires is a step further in resocialization of the common capital…Something like in the joke of ” negative selection eventualy turning positive”. …inevitable…inevitably!

  30. avatar
    Maia Alexandrova

    Money makes you free, love makes you happy. You can be poor, but surrounded by loving people and feeling loved and happy. You can also be a billionaire who can do anything he wants, open any door with money, but still feel empty and unfulfilled inside. Money and luxury cannot cure this. Only love can. Love, kindness and compassion for others, enjoying the simple things in life (they are free) – this is what makes us happy.

    Therefore, stashing billions in bank accounts is unnecessary. There should be 80% tax on such people and the money should go in the state budget where it can be used better and benefit millions of people.

    • avatar
      kevin

      I was with you until the last sentence Maia . Im thinking more at a certain level of wealth the Christmas bonus should be compulsory large as you like to all your employees .
      The state would only waste it , at least employees would spend it which boosts the economy(s)

    • avatar
      Maia Alexandrova

      Kevin,
      Yes, there are many possibilities to use available funds. It could be benefits for the poor (including the working poor), building houses and public facilities or any other reasonable social initiative. At least the money will be used for a better purpose than just being buried in the bank accounts of stingy and greedy billionaires forever (they can never really use it all in their lifetime, unless they give it away). It would simply add to a country’s GDP, I guess.

    • avatar
      Elyssa

      80% tax = rich people store their money abroad to avoid this tax…

    • avatar
      PowerJohn

      Ridiculous! They are giving their money willingly already and helping the society much better than a tax would because of goverment corruption.
      Second they have created amazing stuff for us. Elon Musk is innovating the car industry and the space industry. Bill Gates gave us the operating system most of use etc by working like 16 hours+ per day.

      Third they are not rich because of under paying their workers and such
      Maybe some are, but those should be punished individually by the courts.

      So in conclusion I think we should impose a tax like all the other people have on them and that’s it

      The only thing I think

    • avatar
      Sundous

      Money doesn’t equal freedom and love doesn’t equal happiness. You can be poor and be sad, you can be rich and be happy. You could have all the money in the world but still be locked up like the princess of UAE. I think that the moment you start earning millions the only further thing you won’t is more money and you will never be satisfied. As long as you are content and happy with the amount of money you have then it doesn’t matter as long as you are doing the right things such as paying tax. Many billionaire are exempt from this and I do not know why.

  31. avatar
    Alex

    The possibility the be a billionaire surely needs to exist. Otherwise you’d have to introduce a ceiling at 999,999,999 Dollars, which is dumb. It’s an entirely different question if it should be so easy to become one. There is nothing wrong in progressive dividends taxation. People who earn more pay more taxes. So why shouldn’t major investors be paying progressive taxes on their investments too?

    • avatar
      John Patrick

      That’s a great cap. I think the government, private sector, unnamed corporation or tax authority should tax a billionaire at the normal rate. Then any amount above that absolute millionaire cap not allocated to expenditure should be shown where it’s spent, or printed out and returned to the bank to pay the institution that produces the money to reduce the public deficit. Donating to a charity or giving hungry children who are uneducated any benefit is just expanding the charity market which pulls the poor, middle and upper class balance sheets downwards and creates holes. There’s still wealth accumulation and current assets to consider. Most important is as soon as there is a cap on the rich capital there will be a cap on the poor capital accumulation. However economies have different shapes and patterns, and opinion holders have different opinions on what’s best.

  32. avatar
    Γεώργιος

    Should billionaires steal the sweat of others?

  33. avatar
    Mitzie

    No need for big companies and holdings, they need to break into small entities where each management team has more impact and more translucency

  34. avatar
    Constantinescu

    I am the grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-nepfiew of The mighty Oglu-oglu, the inventer of The wheel. Why am I not billionaire!?… A great motive of debate: Am I too modest?

    • avatar
      Simona

      no dear, you didn’t take out a patent. Anyway most inventors remained poor, it’s the businessmen who bought the rights to the inventions and marketed them who are rich. Take the inventor of insulin for diabetics for example.

    • avatar
      Jan

      doubtfull the oldest wheel ever found was found in Slovenia.

    • avatar
      Sundous

      NO crime should not exist, but inevitably does. I think if you are proposing that these two questions have similar answers than you are completely wrong.

  35. avatar
    Olivier

    I font t mind if they pay tax in Europe and if there is a common tax policy

  36. avatar
    Hugo

    Should stupid people exist? Well, if there weren’t any stupid people who say shits like this, there were no one to make jokes of. People who asks this kind of questions maybe would want to like in countries like North Korea, where the only billionaire there is Kim Jong Sun…

    • avatar
      sundous

      What is wrong with you. You are clicking on a website made for the specific fact of debating controversial questions and you have the audacity to ask if stupid people exist. If you have a problem with people sharing and discussing their opinions in ways that aren’t so obnoxiously rude then go somewhere else

  37. avatar
    Karel

    Should entrepreneurship be punished? Should people be made redundant? Should sponsorship be forbidden? Before attacking any employer, check where you would be without them. If you do not need them, then start your own business.

    • avatar
      Gabor

      this is such a populist, demagogue bs what you said! Seldom empty words of yours. Please shut up ! Please!

    • avatar
      Karel

      reality hurts, I know

    • avatar
      Arnout

      because stealing isn’t entrepreneurship.
      I gues kings and the church where awesome back in the day aswel.

  38. avatar
    Julia

    It is interesting. Normally it wouldn’t bother me if they paid their taxes instead of legal tax evasion. However what is worse is that billionaire individuals or corporations use their wealth and the power it gives them to influence policies in their favour or to further their political or personal agenda whether that is digital id’s and vaccines for all or a specific country’s politics.

    • avatar
      Arnout

      you can’t be a billionaire if you did. And that’s the issue.

  39. avatar
    Rajesh

    Person who has asked this question if given the opportunity will jump on the oppurtunity to become a billionaires

    • avatar
      Arnout

      what’s your point? It’s a society question not an individual one. And if you can’t be a billionaire by not exploiting the system then you shouldn’t be one.

    • avatar
      Rajesh

      some indiviual person is administrator of this channel ..i am sure the questions are from his mind not from some board of directors or ministers getting together and brain storming hhhmm what questions shoukd we ask today

    • avatar
      PowerJohn

      @Arnout some are billionaires without having done so illegally. Thinking otherwise is the mentality of people who think they are only there and they are not because they made illegal stuff

  40. avatar
    Julie Allen

    I am all for a capitalist society but there comes a time when someone has too much money, they will not have enough time to spend it, I think that there should be a world tax on Billionaires so that they cannot hide in tax havens, and the taxes raised used to ease poverty around the world. Never has this been more important, they have made the money on the backs of others and during a pandemic they should be made to pay back, support the governments that have supported them over the years. When industries are facing total economic collapse, one billionaire could save a whole industry – come on step up to the plate.

    • avatar
      PowerJogn

      From what I have seen the taxes never help the poor. While the money the billionaires willingly give seems to be having some effect.
      And why is that to much money? If they didn’t exist we wouldn’t be better and probably worse

    • avatar
      PowerJohn

      Why his was work should be used to save the other people? They are not getting richer because the others are getting poor. They are getting richer because many are associated with tech companies and as we know trch has prosper during the pandemic because of remote work and such. They just have to pay their taxes and that’s it

    • avatar
      Elyssa

      What do you mean “from what I’ve seen taxes never help the poor” ?! No taxes = no NHS, no fire free brigade, no benefits, no free schools. Everything would be privatised, and the poor wouldn’t be able to afford any of it. More taxes = better NHS, better benefits, better schools etc. The money for this doesn’t grow on trees, it needs to some from the richest percentile.

  41. avatar
    Elyssa

    What do you mean “from what I’ve seen taxes never help the poor” ?! No taxes = no NHS, no fire free brigade, no benefits, no free schools. Everything would be privatised, and the poor wouldn’t be able to afford any of it. More taxes = better NHS, better benefits, better schools etc. The money for this doesn’t grow on trees, it needs to some from the richest percentile.

  42. avatar
    Thodoris

    What?? That’s the most stupid thing ever……

    • avatar
      sundous

      hahahahahahah ur soo funny Chris. Im currently dying of laughter.

  43. avatar
    Христо

    Senator Sanders, is that you who is asking this question?

  44. avatar
    Arnout

    Nope, its a danger to democracy to have too much power in 1 man.

  45. avatar
    Michał

    Who would sponsor your website if there were no billionaires?

  46. avatar
    Maria

    The owners of the big corporations are leftists. Ask them

  47. avatar
    Gonçalo

    We should fight poverty, not wealthiness

  48. avatar
    Jocelyn

    Does it make them really happy

  49. avatar
    Bernard

    Did they steal it? Did Jeff Bezos steal Amazon from someone else? If not, then he deserves to enjoy what he built.

  50. avatar
    Craig

    No, who do you think you are to determine how much another may accrue? I find it hard to imagine a greater infringement on one’s person and their freedom.

  51. avatar
    Adrian

    There should be a maximum income

  52. avatar
    Apostolos

    No but it takes careful planing cuz becoming a billionaire or a millionaire or anything like that is based on human selfishness and thus its part of our nature. It takes careful planning and laws without legal loopholes in order to stop the creation of billionaires

  53. avatar
    Alberto

    Billionaires are just a flaw in the taxing system.

  54. avatar
    Graz

    I think there should be a maximum which no person on earth should exceed. This would ensure more economic sustainability, fewer gaps in personal and public budgets, less violence and more security.

  55. avatar
    walae

    I will gladly join the debates.

    • avatar
      edie

      i would gladly join the debates also

  56. avatar
    Vincent Lia

    Yes if they worked for it without breaking any laws. Many do not start out to be billionaires but to succeed in a business or in their career.

  57. avatar
    Alexander Tsankov

    No, of course. The commodities prior to everything exist due to the presence of a society around it. The concentration of wealth means a concentration of power, which then always leads to unequal participation in the social sphere.

  58. avatar
    Riccardo Cuciniello

    No billionaire works for their billions. You become a billionaire thanks to a mechanism of resources drainage. Even if you don’t break any rule (which I doubt – Amazon’s workers are underpaid and exploited af for example), you’re still playing a corrupted game.The point isn’t that billionaires shouldn’t exist. The point is that the very game that produces them should be played. Why? Because it’s detrimental for the vast majority of those who play, for the ecosystems, and so on.

    • avatar
      Dobromir Georgiev

      Here is an underpaid Amazon employee in the late 90s. https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aerm96j_700b.jpg
      Do you think it was easy and he did not work hard in order to go from there to the richest man in the world?
      Yes, I agree that laws and regulations should be put in place in order to guarantee some basic worker rights and perhaps things should be re-examined on a case by case basis from time to time. Let’s make it fair to the workers but also let’s not assume that if someone is rich, they did something wrong.

    • avatar
      Riccardo Cuciniello

      Dobromir Georgiev dude, I don’t assume it. I know it for fact. Everybody knows it 😅
      Also, don’t you think that such a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people can be a threat to national security & integrity? Think about all those ppl with financial interests, who basically have the right over life and death of millions of people, just because they own shares etc.? Not to mention the potential (and confirmed ahah) corruption of politicians.
      There may even be some honest billionaire somewhere in the world (I doubt it tho – billionaires don’t work for the billions, but they exploit the financial system which literally enables them to bet and win big sums of money on the skin of normal people), but their very existence is dangerous. Not to mention that it’s a waste of resources.

  59. avatar
    Danijel Knezevic

    Nope, there is no point in having billionairesThey can never place all that capital in play so it can benefit the society, they themselves can never use it in a thousand lifetimes, and that much capital only begets more capital, and it becomes concentrated in the hands of the few, while many get deprived of basics, such as affordable housing or medical servicesI have nothing against successful people who get rich on their own merits and abilities, but when you reach the one billion mark you broke the sistem, and taxation from that point onwards should be 95%

  60. avatar
    Stavros Pagonidis

    I think computer games offer a very good experimentation space for reward/ effort. In the early levels of any game, you increase your earnings rapidly. When you reach the top 1% of the game, it becomes ridiculously time consuming to achieve the same incremental progress. If a game does this in a clumsy way, it comes across as “grinding” and the players lose motivation. That’s what you want to avoid in the economy. We should tax the top levels and make it really painful to get from top 90% to 91% to 92% etc. But it has to still feel like a fun rewarding competition. Otherwise people become content at 90% and we would have drawn a ceiling for our capabilities.

    • avatar
      Klimis Arabidis

      You are talking about Billion’s so remaining at 90% does not sound so bad . The grinding process when it comes to those amounts of revenue should start at 50% not at 90%. But you made a Valid point there 👏

  61. avatar
    Ludwig Theile

    If they are also really intelligent, they donate the excess that is not needed to save the planet and thus also their future.

  62. avatar
    João Nuno Sérvulo Correia

    He will invest!!

  63. avatar
    Matthew Griffing

    Should people who think they have the right to decide if a certain kind of person exists exist?No.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.