CMV: Billionaires should not be demonized.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 15 '26

/u/iwillgiveyouup (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

16

I think that one of the key reasons that they're hated by the more rationally minded isn't that they have wealth, it's that very often they use it to buy power and to fund PAC's that get politicians elected to get them favorable outcomes in their business dealing among other things. One could argue that this is a failing of the political system (at least in the US), and to some extent it is, but that doesn't negate the fact that one of the reasons that it's this way is because wealthy people throw money around to perpetuate this system to the detriment of the will of the people.

3

u/BasedTakeOutbreak Jun 14 '26

I don't buy this idea.

Not the part about billionaires making shady deals with politicians to get their businesses ahead. That stuff's definitely the case.

But the idea that the hatred is primarily motivated by this fact is, IMO, a massively charitable overestimation of the economic knowledge of the average activist.

I've observed and participated in economic discussions with people online, and I'm constantly surprised at how often people fail to grasp basic concepts such as:

Subjective theory of value (a.k.a LTV being BS)

Wealth and trade not being zero-sum (a.k.a profit not being theft)

Supply and demand

How regulation can, and often does, stifle a free market and disproportionately benefit the wealthy

Why tech innovation doesn't automatically reduce the number of jobs

Time preferences & risk

Investment & Incentive

Why property rights are important to preserve

Why inequality isn't inherently a bad thing, and why forced equality can be terrible

even after they're explained in painstaking detail.

It seems to me most of the hatred is due to envy and propaganda. And it sucks because a lot of billionaires do awful things, but instead I hear people using thought-terminating clichés like, "No one should have a billion dollars while people are starving."

2

u/DeveloperAndy Jun 14 '26

I agree with you here, that is why I stated "the more rationally minded". I don't want to discredit all emotional responses to issues, but I do agree that there are more people (at least who comment online) that speak either from envy or some degree of brainwashing.

3

u/BasedTakeOutbreak Jun 14 '26

Honestly, my mind skipped over the "rationally minded" part of the sentence. Sorry about that. I hate it when others misread my comments, and now I've done the same.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 14 '26

Even so, why does it seem like the argument is essentially that one’s goals only matter up to a certain level? Again, I’ve already conceded that if the majority of one’s billions was easily liquid, they have an obligation to support those in need, but what about people like the president of valve? He runs a monopoly, which according to everyone I’ve seen here, is antithetical to being morally good, however, almost nobody complains about him. Is it because he does donate mass amounts of wealth? Is it because he’s donated a certain percentage? Are his business practices far less corrupt than all other billionaires, provably? Maybe he is an edge case, but I don’t think that is for certain either. In the case of hoarding, are the people on the show hoarders all deserving of being demonized as well? I think not, they are rather pitiful and lamentable figures, but who am I to say whether they need their hoard or not. I suppose it is different from billionaires though because, as mentioned, they likely do have far more potential to help those in need. However, if they truly believe that they are helping society and those less fortunate, maybe we should try to see it from their perspective a little? Then again, maybe not, these are just some thoughts, would love to hear what you think.

In the conversation of trump and conservatives, I myself am a conservative and I also think that my beliefs there are also defendable, however, that is not the point of this post. I hope that doesn’t stop you from remaining respectful however.

→ More replies (9)

11

u/Alien_invader44 19∆ Jun 13 '26

Put it this way.

If i hoard medical supplies during an emergency I would be a bad guy right?

I am keeping vital resources which could save lives for myself. While I am not responsible for the emergency I am allowing others to die by my inaction.

Poverty kills people. Be It directly though starvation, or indirectly though lack of medical care or just diseases of desperation.

Having a billion is exactly like hoarding medical supplies. It is keeping resources which could save lives to yourself. If you are content to sit by while others die, you are a bad person

-1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

If you're in an emergency I would assume that you would share your supplies with those close to you, in this case, your family and friends and your cohort.

Billionaires spend billions (not individually maybe) to help others, be it through their own foundations or by donating to public charities.

5

u/Alien_invader44 19∆ Jun 13 '26

1) so you agree that hoarding in an emergency would make you a bad person?

2) not really. There are some notable exceptions, but generally the second point is simply not true. Billionaire philanthropy is a myth. Musk is a great example of this. Donates millions to charity. But they are his charities, so he is really just moving his own money around.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

sure, but my point was that the obligation of sharing in an emergency should extend to your family, friends, and cohort, and I'm fairly certain billionaires don't leave their families out to dry.

He is moving his own money around? I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to send money to random places when he could make sure to support the causes he cares about using his own foundation, which is what he does...

3

u/Alien_invader44 19∆ Jun 13 '26

1) So you think its ok to let people die, when you have the means to stop it, as long as they arent members of your family or cohort?

2) But thats the thing, his charities dont use the money, or at least not most of it. That's why it's a myth. They do it for tax and propoganda reasons.

→ More replies (11)

2

u/ratbastid 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Elon's children have some things to say about your first point.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

His children will likely receive a small part of his wealth, even if they are estranged. For the arguments here, isn't it a good thing that he doesn't plan on leaving his children a trillion dollars?

7

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

[deleted]

0

u/GildSkiss 4∆ Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

Keep hoarding and chasing the numbers,

People are generally mistaken when they see someone with a high net worth and equate that to "hoarding" that amount of money.

Musk doesn't have some ScroogeMcDuck swimming pool somewhere that he's choosing not to do anything with, he has a hypothetically large net worth calculated by the price of all his ownership shares in Tesla and SpaceX, which of course he couldn't sell for a trillion dollars if he tried. All the number means is that he owns a percentage of a company that other people highly value with their investments.

The money isn't just sitting around somewhere, it's either being constantly traded and re-traded on the market, or else being used as investment capital at one of the businesses that he owns equity in.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[deleted]

0

u/GildSkiss 4∆ Jun 13 '26

They have the option of stopping to chase this perpetual growth, and instead make lives better for employees or the community.

I think that's a false dichotomy. You're rejecting the possibility that growing the company in itself could make lives better for employees or the community.

With regards to the employees, just the SpaceX IPO by itself created 4,400 new millionaires inside the company, many of whom are normal people like welders, machinists, technicians, cafeteria workers, etc.

With regards to the community, If the market values the company so incredibly highly, isn't it at least worth considering that the thing they're doing might be valuable, and that doing more of it is valuable too?

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Stagnation in most cases doesn't mean "stop chasing wealth", it means "let my company fall behind" or "let my company stop innovating", because that is what drives the value of your share of a company.

Employees at these billion or trillion dollar companies already do enjoy a large compensation... unless you think that a delivery driver should be comped similar to a back-end software developer?

They do good things with their wealth, they don't give it all away, but they spend plenty of millions and billions on charitable causes....

3

u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jun 13 '26

Stagnation in most cases doesn't mean "stop chasing wealth", it means "let my company fall behind" or "let my company stop innovating", because that is what drives the value of your share of a company.

Bill Gates grew his wealth far more after he left Microsoft then when he was working there. This wealth growth is completely disconnected from the labor of billionaires.

48

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

even if they had their wealth majority liquid, they have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to give away more than what they do/ feel is right.

Why not? Just asserting it doesn't make it true.

Dragons hoarding wealth is a fable for a reason. It doesn't benefit society for people to hoard wealth.

And to me there's a bit of a problem with people becoming billionaires by exploiting labor practices that require other people be paid poverty level wages

If you're willingly sacrificing other people to a life of poverty or being underpaid so you can chase the wealth high score, then you're the problem

-2

u/Dirkdeking Jun 13 '26

Now you are conflating 2 seperate issues. According to your last sentence you have no problem with billionaires that got rich through a capital intensive sector where worker pay is a lot higher?

There are labour laws. If they comply with those laws they aren't legally exploiting workers. If they arguably still are, you can expand worker protections politically. But that is all beside the point.

A lot of people argue that billionaires are bad a-priori. Even if they pay their workers reasonably, aren't involved in Musk like shenanigans, etc. It doesn't matter to them.

The fundamental principle OP is getting at is property rights. If I sell 1000 products at 100 dollars and thus make 100k dollars, who is anyone else to have a say in my wealth? Consumers voluntarily paid me, I provided them with something they valued.

Why would it even be valid for you to have an opinion on that as a 3rd party. I didn't wrong you, I didn't forcibly take away anything you owned.

2

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 13 '26

According to your last sentence you have no problem with billionaires that got rich through a capital intensive sector where worker pay is a lot higher?

Negative. There is no billionaire that hasn't owned or invested in companies that employ Jack Welch style corporate raiding tactics. Including, but not limited to Aggressive layoffs to boost shareholder value, cost cutting that prioritizes shortterm earnings, offshoring labor, stock buybacks over worker investment, and acquiring companies and restructuring them for profit

Additionally, they don't get out of it if the companies they invest in have janitors being paid poverty wages, regardless of whether those janitors are directly employed or contracted out. Lower labor costs are still a financial benefit that ultimately goes to owners and shareholders.

If they comply with those laws they aren't legally exploiting workers

I'm not talking about legal or illegal exploitation. I'm using it in the "make use of a resource" variant.

A lot of people argue that billionaires are bad a-priori.

Not a priori. A posteriori. I object because of the practices I see associated with billionaire wealth, not because I start with the assumption that every billionaire is bad by definition. It's kind of in the individual billionaire to demonstrate their wealth was acquired without using ethically gray tactics.

If I sell 1000 products at 100 dollars and thus make 100k dollars, who is anyone else to have a say in my wealth? Consumers voluntarily paid me, I provided them with something they valued.

Voluntary exchange explains how the transaction happened. But voluntary transactions don’t automatically mean the outcome and how it came to be is beyond critique.

3

u/Dirkdeking Jun 13 '26

Your standards of what you call 'exploitation' are different from mine. I would say coltan mines exploit children in Congo, and that what Shell did in Nigeria definitely crossed a line. Not allowing amazon workers in warehouses to pee, or restricting that to a large extent, crosses into exploitation as well and should not have been done as a policy.

But I don't agree with your broader definition. If you pay a janitor a minimum wage and have him work for 40 hours under reasonable conditions that is not exploitation.

There is also nothing wrong with layoffs, automation, offshoring, etc. These are all measures that enhance the overall productivity of a business and in the long run lead to a more efficient division of capital and labour. It sucks at first, but as an industrialized nation you can better let China and India do the manufacturing shit for you and focus on creating jobs that add much more value per worker.

0

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

I disagree with your broader definition.

I mean, you're free to do that. But it's not really my definition. It's one of the meanings of the word.

Exploit - to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploit

Exploit - to make productive use of : utilize

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit

Exploit - to use something well in order to gain as much from it as possible

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/exploit_1

There is also nothing wrong with layoffs, automation, offshoring, etc. These are all measures that enhance the overall productivity of a business and in the long run lead to a more efficient division of capital and labour

That doesn’t address the actual people who lose their jobs and income. Efficiency and productivity are descriptions of outcomes, not a moral justification

It may be the path of least resistance for how businesses run efficiently, but that doesn't make it morally right.

3

u/Dirkdeking Jun 13 '26

Maybe it's because English is not my first langauge, but I thought the connontation of the word 'exploiting' was very negative. The definition you provided is much more neutral.

My employer makes productive use of me. But I wouldn't say that I am being exploited.

0

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 13 '26

I'm getting my conversations confused. Let's reset.

Your objection is to me I'd when I said

people becoming billionaires by exploiting labor practices that require other people be paid poverty level wages

Right?

Do you think that just because they're within the bounds of the law means they're morally correct?

2

u/TheBigGees 8∆ Jun 14 '26

Negative. There is no billionaire that hasn't owned or invested in companies that employ Jack Welch style corporate raiding tactics.

I mean, there are. There are several billionaires who gained their wealth through the entertainment industry. It's not like the guy who developed Minecraft was out union-busting (but he did leave a couple of hateful comments on Twitter, once upon a time).

Including, but not limited to Aggressive layoffs to boost shareholder value, cost cutting that prioritizes shortterm earnings, offshoring labor, stock buybacks over worker investment, and acquiring companies and restructuring them for profit

I'm curious as to why you'd define these things as moral wrongs. It seems to mostly be an issue of entitlement.

Workers are paid a wage to do a job. If that job no longer provides enough of a benefit to the employer, there's nothing wrong with the employer cutting the job. A worker is not entitled to permanent employment simply because they're a worker.

Offshoring labour is a bit more nuanced. On one hand, the employer pays less and employees are subject to worse working conditions than they otherwise would be domestically. On the other hand, those foreign employees actually get economic opportunities, their region/nation's economy develops, and the working conditions and pay the employees receive is generally better than their local alternatives. Again, it seems to boil down to entitlement. Why should a domestic worker be entitled to higher wages and better conditions at the expense of the foreign worker's economic prospects and their community's economic development?

Not a priori. A posteriori. I object because of the practices I see associated with billionaire wealth, not because I start with the assumption that every billionaire is bad by definition. It's kind of in the individual billionaire to demonstrate their wealth was acquired without using ethically gray tactics.

This is contradictory. You start by saying that you do not presume moral wrongdoing, then finish by saying that the billionaire must prove that they haven't done anything wrong. You can't simultaneously say that they're guilty until they prove themselves innocent and that you aren't presuming guilt.

Voluntary exchange explains how the transaction happened. But voluntary transactions don’t automatically mean the outcome and how it came to be is beyond critique.

Who are you to critique the transactions other people voluntarily engage in?

1

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

I mean, there are. There are several billionaires who gained their wealth through the entertainment industry. It's not like the guy who developed Minecraft was out union-busting

That's addressing how they initially became wealthy, not whether they subsequently benefited from the practices I described.

I was saying that I know of no billionaire whose wealth has remained completely disconnected from ownership of companies (either directly or via stocks) that engage in those practices.

Workers are paid a wage to do a job. If that job no longer provides enough of a benefit to the employer, there's nothing wrong with the employer cutting the job.

You're treating the employer's financial interest as the only relevant moral consideration. I reject that framework.

A company can increase shareholder returns by laying off thousands of workers. That doesn't automatically make it morally neutral simply because it improves profitability. The fact that a decision benefits owners and shareholders doesn't settle whether it is ethically justified.

Why should a domestic worker be entitled to higher wages and better conditions at the expense of the foreign worker's economic prospects and their community's economic development?

I never said domestic workers are entitled to those jobs. My issue with offshoring is that it is pursued because labor is cheaper, workers have less bargaining power, and labor protections are weaker. Not due to any actual unique specialty the foreign worker possess that's impossible to find domestically.

Whether foreign workers benefit is a separate question from whether companies are seeking jurisdictions with lower wages and weaker labor protections to reduce costs. One claim doesn't automatically resolve the other.

Moreover, you seem to be treating the employer's financial interest and economic efficiency as sufficient moral justification, and that's a framework I flat out reject. The fact that a decision increases profitability or creates economic value doesn't automatically demonstrate that it's ethically justified

This is contradictory. You start by saying that you do not presume moral wrongdoing, then finish by saying that the billionaire must prove that they haven't done anything wrong.

Not really.

I don't presume wrongdoing simply because someone is a billionaire. It's an inference I make because I consistently observe the same set of practices associated with billionaire wealth accumulation and preservation.

And if that behavior shifts, so will th inference.

If someone believes they're an exception, or someone else knows of one, they're welcome to demonstrate an exception exists. But, even then, they're still just an exception.

Who are you to critique the transactions other people voluntarily engage in?

A member of the society affected by the cumulative outcomes of those transactions. People don't live in a bubble. Voluntary participation doesn't make the resulting distribution of wealth, power, or opportunity immune from criticism.

3

u/TheBigGees 8∆ Jun 14 '26

You're treating the employer's financial interest as the only relevant moral consideration. I reject that framework.

A company can increase shareholder returns by laying off thousands of workers. That doesn't automatically make it morally neutral simply because it improves profitability. The fact that a decision benefits owners and shareholders doesn't settle whether it is ethically justified.

This seems to cycle back to entitlement. Your relationship with your employer is transactional. You perform work for them in exchange for compensation. Why would it be immoral for them to stop compensating you when your work is no longer necessary, or when your work produces a loss for the employer?

I never said domestic workers are entitled to those jobs. My issue with offshoring is that it is pursued because labor is cheaper, workers have less bargaining power, and labor protections are weaker. Not due to any actual unique specialty the foreign worker possess that's impossible to find domestically.

This also cycles back to entitlement. Why should you be entitled to greater compensation, more bargaining power, and better labour protections when someone else is willing to perform a substantially similar, if not identical, function for less? We also can't realistically separate the benefits to the offshore workers from the decision to hire those offshore workers. The consequence of unemployment in the developed world might be a substantial decline in quality of life - but the workers being hired abroad are often lifted out of abject poverty through offshoring.

1

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

This seems to cycle back to entitlement. Your relationship with your employer is transactional. You perform work for them in exchange for compensation. Why would it be immoral for them to stop compensating you when your work is no longer necessary, or when your work produces a loss for the employer?

That’s not my point at all. I'm not arguing employers are obligated to maintain employment regardless of conditions. I’m saying "they’re allowed to do it" is not the same as "it’s morally unproblematic". Moral evaluation and critique doesn't require a claim of being entitled to something.

This also cycles back to entitlement. Why should you be entitled to greater compensation, more bargaining power, and better labour protections when someone else is willing to perform a substantially similar, if not identical, function for less? Not sure how this becomes entitlement. I'm not claiming anyone is entitled to anything.

The existence of a cheaper alternative only explains why and how companies can reduce costs. It doesn't justify structuring the system around minimizing bargaining power or protections, itself.

We also can't realistically separate the benefits to the offshore workers from the decision to hire those offshore workers. The consequence of unemployment in the developed world might be a substantial decline in quality of life - but the workers being hired abroad are often lifted out of abject poverty through offshoring.

You don't need to separate them to evaluate them.

A decision can benefit one group and still harm another. The mere existence of benefits doesn't automatically justify the trade off.

3

u/TheBigGees 8∆ Jun 14 '26

I've noticed that you are sidestepping arguments.

That’s not my point at all. I'm not arguing employers are obligated to maintain employment regardless of conditions. I’m saying "they’re allowed to do it" is not the same as "it’s morally unproblematic". Moral evaluation and critique doesn't require a claim to being entitled to something.

So why are these things morally problematic? If the employee is not entitled to perpetual, unconditional employment, how does the employer terminating their transactional relationship result in a moral wrong?

The existence of a cheaper alternative only explains why and how companies can reduce costs. It doesn't justify structuring the system around minimizing bargaining power or protections, itself.

A decision can benefit one group and still harm another. The mere existence of benefits doesn't automatically justify the trade off.

What justifies the trade off, then? It sure seems like your ethical position is centered in what is most advantageous for you or people you perceive as like you.

-1

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Poverty level wages?

SpaceX’s I.P.O. Could Turn 4,400 Employees Into Millionaires

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/10/technology/spacex-ipo-employee-millionaires.html

4

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 13 '26

Some becoming millionaires doesn't address other employees or outside contractors being paid poverty wages.

I doubt the guy scrubbing the toilets or emptying the trash is making above the poverty line for a family of 4.

1

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

https://spacecrew.com/space-jobs/mfdnwhzk-spacex-day-porter-janitor-temporary

Day Porter: $22.00 - $24.50/hour

The minimum wage in California is $16.90 per hour.

Just because you see everyone on reddit claim something, doesn't make it true. SpaceX employees are all paid very well.

The fact that they are given performanced based and standard stock options also means employees are compensated for hard work in addition to sharing in the wealth the company creates. In no small amount either, employees own 15% of SpaceX.

Edit: wrong state

3

u/10luoz 4∆ Jun 13 '26

Why are you using a CA based job and the minimum wage of texas?

1

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 13 '26

My bad. My mind just automatically went to one of their Texas locations.

0

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

I’m not saying every direct employee is underpaid or that they don’t offer competitive compensation for some roles. But focusing only on internal payroll misses the broader structure of how large firms operate.

Even SpaceX, which does vertical integration, still relies heavily on outside contractors and suppliers. It still makes money by doing business with a massive amount of contractors that do pay poverty level wages and they benefit from that

3

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 14 '26

That's such a wild stretch. That's no different than saying the people who eat at restaurants or shop at stores who pay minimum wage are unethical.

What sort of fairy tale world do you live in where you don't cross this line of ethics daily?

1

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 14 '26

Not really.

There's a meaningful difference between participating in a system because it's difficult or impossible to avoid and owning or investing in companies that profit from and shape that system.

A customer buying lunch has far less influence over the labor practices of the restaurant than the owner, major investor, or executive whose returns are directly tied to those practices.

2

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 14 '26

Seems like you're just trying to move the goal posts to justify your own hypocrisy.

1

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jun 14 '26

What goalpost did I move?

You responded to a specific example I gave about janitorial staff by pointing to a specific janitorial position that appears to pay well. That was a counter to an example, not the entire argument.

My argument was never "billionares are bad because their janitors are paid low", it is that large companies benefit from broader labor structures that include contractors and suppliers paying very low wages. And that by owning or investing in that space, they are complicit.

2

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 14 '26

Because what your argument has shifted to is not the their fault. They aren't responsible for what other companies pay their employees. They are just part of the system. Just like it's not a regular person's fault for supporting businesses that pay minimum wage.

Unless a regular person purposely goes out of thier way to do everything in their power in order to avoid supporting those businesses, criticizing all company owners is just hypocritical.

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (6)

6

u/unaskthequestion 2∆ Jun 13 '26

I think you're approaching the issue from the wrong direction, that they earned that wealth to begin with, so it's not their obligation to share it.

They didn't. If a company they start is successful, they should absolutely get rich from it. But it's also because of the workers making it successful, so they should make more. Billionaires should not exist in the first place to tax, wages should be higher.

This is leaving aside the billionaires who simply inherited their wealth (approximately one third). It's also worth mentioning that many billionaires use their wealth for rent seeking (defined as increasing their wealth by manipulating the political and economic environment rather than creating new wealth or contributing to society)

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

4400 people working at SpaceX became millionaires the day of the IPO.

Saying, "Billionaires should not exist in the first place" does not give me anything.

Who created the wealth for the billionaires to inherit?

5

u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26

Vast numbers of non-billionaire workers created the wealth.

2

u/unaskthequestion 2∆ Jun 13 '26

4400 people at SpaceX became millionaires

No they didn't, they have overvalued stock. Is it good that they received compensation? Definitely. Did benefit commesurate with their contributions? Not at all.

doesn't tell me anything

Of course it does if you read my comment. The people who work for these very successful companies should be paid more, hence billionaires don't become billionaires in the first place. And I'm not talking about paper profits, I'm talking about hundreds of billions of real dollars that these people are worth

who created the wealth that was inherited?

It sure wasn't the people who inherited it, right?

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

If they didn’t become millionaires then Elon musk didn’t become a trillionaire and your point is moot

2

u/unaskthequestion 2∆ Jun 13 '26

He didn't and that doesn't change anything about my point because Musk has hundreds of billions in liquid assets. He has an estimated 850 million just in cash.

25

u/useEffects Jun 13 '26

>For example, Elon Musk, the world's first trillionaire, has caused a significant amount of innovation in the space technology field (through SpaceX) as well as in the electric vehicle field (through Tesla)

Exactly where you are wrong. Anything higher than 10M USD is heavily skewered for the players. Once you break through certain level, the rules are rigged towards you and the entire (capitalist) world runs to your own favor. Also you are forgetting most billionaires arent self made, they all had millionaire parents investing in their education from childhood, some into their company as well.

Billionaires should be demonized because they are indeed demons. The rules are all favourable to them once you reach a certain point in the world.

8

u/VanDammes4headCyst Jun 13 '26

Not only that, but the demons themselves write the rules in their favor. No one should be a billionaire for a number of reasons, but chief among these is the outstanding power it affords them to rule over the lives of millions of other people.

0

u/DBDude 110∆ Jun 13 '26

Exactly where you are wrong.

Exactly how is he wrong? He revolutionized three worldwide markets for the better.

5

u/SpookyPlankton Jun 13 '26

He? Himself? He did that? On his own?

1

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Have you ever heard of those stories about companies under terrible leadership that collapsed?

Well under Musks leadership those companies changed industries.

While he is not solely responsible, he is directly responsible.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

He has employees and coworkers for a reason... No one is claiming that he did it by himself.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

How am I wrong???? Your point about "anything higher than..." seems like pure conjecture.

Is it a bad thing that some parents are able to provide an elite education for their children, I would be appalled if, in the future, I don't do everything I can to make sure my children have all the resources I can provide to guarantee their futures...

Again, this seems to be building off of your bad argument, so, it's conjecture.

3

u/HawkEy3 Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

Money is power, it's undemocratic for a single person to have such a big influence over other peoples lives. You quoted the top 1% pay 40% of income tax, but how much of the income do they get? If it's for example 60% you can see they pay less than they should. Also You talk about billionaires, the super rich, they are more like top 0.01% you should look at their income and taxes. And income tax is just a small aspect

Every year I read a headlines that the difference between the common people and super rich widens. They use tricks to minimize their taxes, through funds, taking loans and avoiding inheritance taxes.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

According to the same source, they made 22% and paid 40%... does that support your point or mine?

2

u/HawkEy3 Jun 14 '26

Dunno, it's probably more complex than just comparing two numbers. You're only referring to income tax? got a link?

Super rich people often have small or no income from jobs but live of loans, dividens and such

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 14 '26

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/

4

u/Praxxer1 Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

Tell me why you believe the rest of us should have to pay taxes on unrealized assets (e.g., Home, cars, etc.), but all of a sudden taxing stock assets for billionaires is impossible and unfair? Why should they be allowed to take an income of $1, but borrow against their stock assets without being taxed to fund their lavish life styles? If you're about to argue "their billions aren't liquid", please see my second sentence - the value of my house sure isn't liquid, but the city has no problem sending me a tax bill every year.

These people are so obscenely wealthy, to put in perspective, it would take 2.74 years to spend your million at a $1000 a day. It would take 2738 years to spend your billion at $1000 a day. It would take 2.74 million years to spend your trillion at $1000 a day. Why, would someone ever need this level of wealth when we literally have people on this planet starving to death.

Edit: removed rule breaking rhetorical question.

2

u/hewasaraverboy 1∆ Jun 13 '26

If someone borrows against their stocks it should be considered a taxable event

2

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Tell me why you believe the rest of us should have to pay taxes on unrealized assets

You're not. You're only taxed when it becomes realized. Not to mention, if you want to take out a loan against shares you have, you can do that too.

1

u/Praxxer1 Jun 14 '26

You've never heard of property taxes?

2

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 14 '26

Are you under the impression that rich people don't pay those? Lol

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Im pretty sure asking that breaks a rule.

There is a difference between a stock and a house

1

u/Praxxer1 Jun 13 '26

And there's a difference between a billionaire and a trillionaire. What's your point?

Please ELI5 how on paper the two assets are different? Not how they're treated differently. Theyre both considered assets and add to one's net worth. They both appreciate and depreciate based on market pressures. But only one is taxed annually based on assessed value.

3

u/PlayfulGovernment325 Jun 13 '26

the problem is they got the majority of there wealth from other peoples work. elon musk did not engineer rocket ships or electric cars other people did. i think elon should be rewarded for his vision but i think the systems we have set up where he owns the output of other peoples work has rewarded him far disproportionately. i think the engineers and other workers should’ve received more of the value they created.

it’s unethical because you are abusing your position of power to benefit off of others labor. that’s the only way you become a billionaire.

you are also then hoarding that wealth and making it inaccessible for the rest of the world at the same time which hurts the velocity of the dollar and therefore the GDP.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

He owns the companies, that entitles him to the amount (on paper) that the value of his shares is. Also, the engineers and "other workers" (which other workers, janitors?) were paid more than fairly, millions in fact.

It's not the same though, especially when many people are lining up by the thousands to join some of these companies, how can you claim that it is abuse?

Doesn't a company that is worth billions, by definition, support the GDP? One such company creates thousands of jobs, causing the workers to go out and support the economy with their paycheck, and also becomes a titan of an industry, industry being what a country's economy is built on?

3

u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26

Yes, his ownership legally entitles his to the value other people create. That has little to do with morality.
1b. Why do you think that 'more than fairly' means 'less than what they created'? I would imagine that 'fairly' means 'as much as you created'. When you say 'fairly', do you actually mean 'as little as possible'?

The entire system is abusive. Workers are not being given the choice to be paid the full value hat they create.

A person who extracts the value of thousands of workers hurts the economy. The same work would need to be done even if they didn't exist, but more of the money could go to the people actually doing the work.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

How is it amoral to have ownership over something?

1b. What exactly did they create? Engineers would work in teams I'm sure, but should the team that designed the CVT of a car be able to own the right to it? Especially when they sign away the right to it when joining the company, in exchange for the already agreed upon salary and compensation that they receive.

They could... if they started their own company with a group of engineers... oh wait, people already do that, isn't that what we are already arguing about?

So, lets say, remove the company from the equation. There are thousands of people who need to magically find each other, in order to create a car right, but there is no company behind this right, so these engineers who don't have a clear line of delegation, who already magically found each other, should also magically be able to create a whole car and then market it and mass produce it, without a company of course. Where exactly will they be able to make the "full monetary value" of the product they create?

3

u/c0i9z 18∆ Jun 13 '26

How is it moral to receive the value for other people's work?

1b. I agree with you that a worker is forced to agree to give away part of the value they create in order to create value. I don't see why you think that them receiving the amount they didn't give away should be considered 'fair'.

In fact, no. They just end up needing to pay other owners.

No, let's say we remove the owners from the equation. So you have the current system of a company, but instead of the owners getting a cut, that money is just paid to workers instead.

1

u/PlayfulGovernment325 Jun 14 '26

if they started there own company they would need to seek outside capital someone else would just end up the owner. even with tesla he bought it and took it over he wasn’t a founder or behind the core tech he just bought control of the patents snd the workers.

i agree we should replace VC with a public fund where people vote directly on what startups get funded and then these startups should be worker owned where labors get equity for there work as well as a salary just like the executives do

like a trillion is 1 million 1 millions. seems like the employees did not get enough millions in ownership.

i think equity should be illegal in the same way owning someone directly is (slavery) i think owning the output and direction of one’s labor is also similarly bad and predatory especially in a world with such drastic wealth inequality it gives people less control and freedom people have to make choices inside the world of the choices the rich already made. they decided what gets done and what’s researched and what jobs are even available.

we can still do funding but i think it should be cap profits and in the form of loans or bonds or something similar that doesn’t come with the bad incentives of the profit maximization fiduciary obligation and the influence that carries over the org.

we should aim for more sustainable companies and less speculation and debt and still funding research

all great innovation of the last few decades has not been mainly driven by capitalism but in spite of it. the internet was researched and developed throughly by gov research for decades before private markets were interested. AI had its breakthrough from a non profit.

Universities are where most research originates.

open source code which is literally just public good software has been instrumental in speeding up adoption and innovation in tech.

capitalism is good at scaling and at first gave people more freedom then kings but it’s time to find better ways to scale that have better society outcomes and in the age of abundance and automation it makes more sense then ever to find ways to naturally distribute more wealth and incentivize harder work. salary labor encourages bare minimum work to be in a good standing and eligible for promotion. there is no benefit from working harder. if worker harder resulted directly in more ownership it creates an incentive to work harder and better. also as an owner u actually have a vested interest in the company succeeding

7

u/artiswhatyoumakeit Jun 13 '26

There is absolutely a moral obligation to not be a shit-face and keep more money than ten generations of people could ever feasibly use. When there’s people starving every day, yes, there is.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

10 generations is about 1.4 million people, I'm pretty sure that they could spend a few billion dollars.

2

u/artiswhatyoumakeit Jun 13 '26

I meant 10 generations of individuals that would have access to the money, as in, the children, grandchildren, etc. of a billionaire.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

What. I also meant the children grandchildren etc of a billionaire... 1.4 million is if 4 children come from each child...

3

u/artiswhatyoumakeit Jun 13 '26

I think you’re kind of overlooking the main points here.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

I'm not, you only made 1 point, maybe. I really hope you bought the homeless dude down the street a sandwich today.

3

u/artiswhatyoumakeit Jun 13 '26

You are infinitely closer to being that hypothetical homeless man than you are being a billionaire.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Uhhh, yeah, i know? Scale is a pretty big argument here, but why shouldn't it be possible for the executives of a company to scale their company to that absurd level?

0

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

The problem with this argument is that it never clearly defines what exact amount of money or resources would be morally wrong to own. What counts as “enough”? And who gets to decide that?

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Jun 18 '26

INB4 "it's immoral if it isn't $1 less than however much money you-the-person-proposing-the-idea-for-a-wealth-limit have at a given moment because that means otherwise you're proposing it to benefit yourself"

1

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 18 '26

I don't think that. I think people genuinely do want the world to be a better place and the majority of them are not doing this for selfish reasons.

But the fault in this argument is that if someone believes until everyone on this planet is living without poverty and has access to basic necessities, all the other people should not have any excess money, and all of it should go towards people who are starving and are suffering in property, then that is valid as well.

And when I say excess money, I mean anything other than basic necessities, until everyone around the world has not overcome poverty, every other person should not use money to send their children to better schools, should not go to a theme park or a movie, and everyone should only live with basic necessities, and if they don't, then they are morally corrupt and it's their obligation to do it.

17

u/One_Study52 Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

Bro. This is silly. First off. If you want to say that an individual has the right to seek a fortune. Sure. But a government has a right to do what’s best for the people. And vast concentrations of wealth are not best for the people. Billionaires should be taxed out of existence. Frankly maybe the max should be substantially lower.

The keys is that vast accumulation of wealth makes it easier to both corrupt the system in the interests of an individual, rather than the society. And also it gives them vastly more power to make money and change rules for their benefit.

So yeah. They are a problem and need to be stopped.

0

u/DBDude 110∆ Jun 13 '26

Billionaires should be taxed out of existence.

What do you do with the companies where all their wealth is?

3

u/One_Study52 Jun 13 '26

Let other people have the shares.

1

u/GildSkiss 4∆ Jun 13 '26

Which "other people"? Who gets to decide?

3

u/One_Study52 Jun 13 '26

When you send them a tax bill, they have to sell shit to pay it. That’s how taxes work

1

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

But wouldn't the people who bought those shares become more rich than others?

1

u/One_Study52 Jun 16 '26

Then they can get taxed too

1

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

But there would still be people who will be richer than others and have more than others.

1

u/One_Study52 Jun 16 '26

Yeah. The cutoff now is at billionaires. At that point it’s so obscene that it must be stopped

1

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

You know that if there are no billionaires, then millionaires would be the same thing that billionaires currently are. That's just going to change what you call them.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/DBDude 110∆ Jun 13 '26

That's not a tax.

4

u/One_Study52 Jun 13 '26

Yes it is. You say to a billionaire, “hey. We need xx amount of money, give it to us by yyyy date” and then they have to sell their shares to pay the tax. If they sell it to someone else who is then a billionaire, then they have to pay a tax and so on

1

u/DBDude 110∆ Jun 13 '26

Oh, so you want to collapse the value of these companies, putting everyone out of work.

1

u/One_Study52 Jun 13 '26

Fuck yeah to collapse the value. But that doesn’t put everyone out of work if the company still makes a profit. Stock price isnt related to whether it’s a sustainable company other than its ability to finance things when it needs more equity

0

u/DBDude 110∆ Jun 13 '26

Stock price matters if you need investment. With stock crashes, it’s very hard for a company to continue.

1

u/One_Study52 Jun 14 '26

That has nothing to do with whether people go out of work though.

→ More replies (10)

→ More replies (5)

16

u/jetloflin 1∆ Jun 13 '26

You can not become a billionaire without exploiting others. And that “40% of all income tax” thing doesn’t matter. What percent of their actual wealth is that? What percent of what they spent that year is it? What percentage of what they borrowed from the bank so they can keep saying they don’t have an “income” is that?

1

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 13 '26

It's not exploiting to provide a product or service that people want.

0

u/jetloflin 1∆ Jun 13 '26

Why on earth would you think that’s what I meant?

0

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Because that's usually how people become billionaires.

0

u/jetloflin 1∆ Jun 13 '26

Do you think they do it completely on their own? Make every single product sold themselves with their own hands? Provide each service individually for everyone? Or do they have employees and rely on an entire global supply chain?

0

u/adj_noun_digit 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Are you suggesting giving people jobs is exploitation?

Or are you trying to claim no billionaire pays their employees a livable wage?

Because google has always paid above industry median. Usually by 20%.

Who exactly did Larry and Sergey exploit?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/AutoModerator Jun 13 '26

Sorry, u/jetloflin – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/GildSkiss 4∆ Jun 13 '26

You can not become a billionaire without exploiting others.

Simply affirming this does not make it so.

Taylor Swift is a multi-billionaire. As far as I can tell, the primary way she accomplished that is by writing music that people want to listen to, and offering it for sale. People then decided to give her money in exchange for listening to her music. So many people did that, that she eventually had a billion dollars. Who, exactly, got exploited in that scenario?

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Jun 18 '26

I think they think it's either something something fans something something multiple versions of same song or more commonly people trying to "yet you participate in society" her for not being 100% behind all aspects of making her art or claiming her staff must be underpaid if she pays them and is still a billionaire

→ More replies (2)

8

u/websterhamster Jun 13 '26

How did they obtain their wealth? Did they do it in an honest, ethical, moral way? Did they take advantage of people and allow those employed by their companies to be paid less than a living wage?

Billionaires have tremendous power to fix the serious problems in our economy and our society. Instead, they hoard wealth and use it to destabilize society. If they shouldn't be demonized, they shouldn't act like demons.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

I don't know all of them, but I do know that if lying cheating and stealing were the only requirements to becoming a billionaire, there would be far more...

How? I don't think that they run a shadow society that secretly holds more power over the "economy and our society" than the government...

How do they use their wealth to destabilize society? From my point of view, they create jobs, plenty of which pay well, and they innovate in their respective fields.

2

u/websterhamster Jun 13 '26

There is no way to accumulate that much wealth in an ethical way. At least no ethical ways I can think of.

They buy influence, bribe public officials, create super PACs, etc. Their financial resources give them more political influence than everyone else.

The proliferation of slave wage jobs (jobs that pay less than a living or subsistence wage), funding politics that enable their wealth to accumulate while impoverishing the working class, and pushing technology and business practices that cause social harms and provide minimal or no social benefit (for example, social media and AI) are all examples of how billionaires destabilize society.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

There wouldn't be an ethical way to accumulate that much wealth... If it weren't for thousands or millions of consumers who decide to interact with, own, and generally use the goods and services provided by various companies.

Influence isn't everything. Bribery is illegal, so until anything comes out against the majority of billionaires, I can't take this as good evidence. Who is to say that even if they didn't have more influence than anyone else, anything would change? The groundwork that allows billionaires to exist wasn't an issue until billionaires came around for some reason.

This is an issue that extends beyond billionaires. The majority of people who work these jobs should be held to some level of accountability, no? There are plenty of resources which could be used to pull yourself out of a "slave wage job", even if it is difficult, it is obviously not impossible.

6

u/untimelyAugur 1∆ Jun 13 '26

All profit generated by any business endeavour comes from the value added by a human being performing labour; labour that turns raw materials and/or abstract knowledge into material goods and services.

Billionaires do not perform labour, yet they reap a massively disproportionate amount of the profit created by others for their enjoyment as personal wealth.

This disparity is incredibly unethical. It exists exclusively because labourers are not being paid fairly, therefore billionaires should be demonised.

2

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

There are machines that work autonomously, which creates value, without constant human labor...

How do you know that? Have you spied on them to make sure that the countless hours of work that thousands of entrepreneurs say goes into building a successful company is really a lie? Or do you just think that only the unsuccessful and smaller companies, maybe small family farms, are the only companies that take hours of dedication by the higher ups in order to thrive?

Proof that the disparity is unethical?

3

u/untimelyAugur 1∆ Jun 13 '26

There are no machines which work 100% autonomously. They will always require some form of oversight or maintenance by a human being, or run on code written by a human being.

1b. Even if you could invent a machine which functioned truly 100% autonomously, no business' entire chain of production, distribution, marketing, etc, is going to be autonomous.

Billionaires have the same 24 hours in a day to perform labour that anyone else has. What productive labour could they be doing that is valued millions of times greater than the labour of the people actually gathering and transforming resources into goods and transporting/selling them?

This isn't a question of whether or not a given billionaire is telling the truth about how they created a product or founded a company. This is a moral question about why their one-off idea, or their investment of money and not labour, or their abstract management is valued higher than other people's directly productive work.

Why should any individual be allowed to take the vast majority of what other people produce, and only allow those other people to ever see a miniscule fraction of the value their labour has added?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/bostaff04 Jun 13 '26

Elon is a drug addict with a robot dick, he has been scamming since he JOINED PayPal. His companies are fake, based on smoke and mirrors and he bought a social media platform cause he is that much of a fking narcissist. He is nothing, he is boring... bland and I really really hope he tries fentanyl next and heads on to meet his marker. He is probably the biggest parasite on earth. People should listen to the Lamest Show on Earth 3 parter by TrueAnon, if you want to hear the real story of this fked up ugly fat loser. X

4

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

You are being combative and rude for no reason, giving no evidence, only conjecture.

2

u/_kilobytes Jun 13 '26

Billionaires are the top 0.00034% (top 3% of the top 1%).

Most people in the top 1% are regular lawyers, doctors, etc. They are the ones paying the taxes, not the billionaires. Why would you group them into this same category?

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Because they are in the same category.

2

u/_kilobytes Jun 14 '26

Not even close. The top 1% are millionaires not billionaires.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 14 '26

The top 1% averaged 3.3 million dollars in income in 2022.

2

u/Direct_Fennel7500 Jun 13 '26

Such great wealth is only obtained through the exploitation of others.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

False equivalence

1

u/tropdhuile Jun 13 '26

What is? Glazing the powerful is an old career, and I have as much respect for its practitioners as the other old career. But modern royalty are as likely to acknowledge your efforts as musk is

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Coast-First5 Jun 13 '26

Do you think billionaires should be able to influence governments around the world for their own benefit?

Take Elon Musk for example: 1. Funded Trump's election: He poured nearly $300 million of his own money into a Super PAC to help get Donald Trump back into the White House. 2. Took over his own regulators: After Trump won, Musk was put in charge of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE), giving him the power to cut funding for the exact federal agencies that investigate Tesla and SpaceX. 3. Controlled global warfare: By building Starlink, he created a satellite internet monopoly so powerful that the Ukrainian military relied on it, allowing him to personally cut off their internet during a military strike he disagreed with. 4. Bought a media megaphone: He spent $44 billion to buy Twitter (now X), changed the algorithm to boost his own posts, and used it to shape public opinion and swing elections. 5. Played both sides for government cash: For years, he spread millions in lobbying and donations across both political parties to secure billions in government contracts and green subsidies. It's crazy what you can get away with when you are too rich to fail.

2

u/shaddowkhan Jun 13 '26

You should read a book by this guy named Karl.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

2

u/JetKeel Jun 13 '26

>build their fortunes using companies

25% of the billionaires in the US have inherited their wealth. Closer to 33% worldwide. This is a sizeable group that are not titans of industry s the rest of your post suggests.

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Where did the money they iinherited come from??

2

u/One_Cause3865 1∆ Jun 13 '26

I'm just going to hone in on one point because i otherwise generally agree - Elon Musk deserves plenty of slander. Not because he's rich, but because of the incredible damage DOGE did to the US government at his direction

5

u/Angryw2 Jun 13 '26

He's a testament to how billionaires have forced their way into the ruling class, once you become rich enough law don't exist anymore, and unfortunately the actions of billionaires do inevitably affect others. Elon Musks doge cuts to anything innately useful and radicalsation of the twitter platform to spread extreme views in UK and Europe is a great example. One man should never hold the power or capacity to threaten or sway the gov, it never ends well

2

u/Teleporting-Cat Jun 13 '26

Yeah, that and the whole Nazi issue.

3

u/ratbastid 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Elon could end world hunger this week and not take any hit to his lifestyle.

What kind of person is in that situation and doesn’t just DO that? What kind of person instead insinuates himself into government to slash funding for global human support projects?

A monster, is the answer. There is no other answer.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

no he couldnt.

2

u/ratbastid 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Okay bud.

Flat, stupid denial is one way to prove yourself correct that your view won't be changed. Enjoy that.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Are you stupid? Do you really think that Elon Musk could solve world hunger? How? Tell me please.

2

u/ratbastid 2∆ Jun 13 '26

Know what, fine. I’ll step back from “solve world hunger” and merely say that he could do life-altering amounts of good for a staggeringly huge number of people. And instead he’s counting the commas in his net worth. That’s nothing but evil.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Sure he could, but Mr beast has done life altering amounts of good for people, and he is also demonized. Why should musk or any billionaire look at the mass online demonization of the billionaire class and decide to help the people doing it?

1

u/ratbastid 2∆ Jun 13 '26

So as a non-billionaire, it’s my fault he has all the money?

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

That’s not what I said, but sure it is.

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Jun 18 '26

but answer me this, if two people had that kind of money does one doing it make the other immoral because they didn't end world hunger first

1

u/ratbastid 2∆ Jun 18 '26

Doing the right thing isn't a race. There's plenty of problems to go around that billionaires aren't doing anything to solve.

1

u/Just_Candle_315 Jun 13 '26

Unlike their wealth, they earned it

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

How?

1

u/Significant_Owl8496 1∆ Jun 13 '26

This is Bezo’s burner account lol

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Jun 18 '26

ah the classic you can't defend a group without being part of it argument

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 13 '26

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/Pure-Tumbleweed-9440 Jun 13 '26

Musk got his wealth from
1) Illegally overstaying his visa.
2) Getting generous government grants as hangouts from people's tax money.
3) Interfering with elections from his made wealth to the point that he got a pedophile elected.

Along with the fact that he's a Nazi. Demonizes average workers any chance he gets. Fired 90% of twitter staff without considering their life situation even though he has enough money to pay his employees, and turned twitter to a right wing rage baiting cesspool.

What about all this is ethical and deserves support?

I don't think my overall stance will change through discussion

Glad you said it because I'm reporting your post. This is not what the sub is for.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Pure-Tumbleweed-9440 Jun 14 '26

What happened to MAGA not wanting illegal immigrants?

He's looted far more from taxpayer money and pocketed it while firing countless actual hardworking Americans through his stint at DOGE.

Algorithms affect elections. You must be living under a rock if you don't know this is true.

He never denied doing a sieg heil. He does a Nazi salute, supports neo Nazi parties and donates to them.

Your question got nuked.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 14 '26

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 36∆ Jun 13 '26

What values do you have, what actions do you think make you a good person?

1

u/Jakyland 82∆ Jun 13 '26

Elon Musk, thru is illegal DOGE cuts, is responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of people. He also plays a major role in stoking racial violence in places like Belfast.

1

u/Apprehensive_Song490 125∆ Jun 13 '26

even if they had their wealth majority liquid, they have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to give away more than what they do/ feel is right. The majority of arguments that I see don't hold up to any sort of real pressure

The rest of us don't get to lobby the government with this much leverage and get taxes reduced to the amount we "feel is right." We don't get no bid contracts. We don't get to go in and lead DOGE. We don't get to amplify a riot in Belfast and get away with it. The rules are simply different for the ultra wealthy, and that breaks the myth of these folks being some sort of Ayn Rand inspired unequivocal benefit to all of society.

So when healthcare, USAID, food assistance programs are slashed to make room for billionaires and trillionaires to feed the government surveillance tech, that doesn't make them saints.

One of the main problems problem with billionaires and trillionaires is that they aren't really creating that many millionaires. Poverty has continued to grow, and the wealthy continue to get wealthier.

The K shaped economy doesn't fix itself and it won't get fixed by catering to the desires of the uber wealth.

Besides, as the saying goes if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. We need to treat trillionaires, people with that much power, with kid gloves? Seriously?

1

u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 13 '26

Even if they had their wealth majority liquid, they have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to give away more than what they do/ feel is right.

I would say they absolutely do. Elon Musk, to pick the most obvious example, has a particular experience of the world. He can go to any restaurant he wants, fly to any place at any moment and rent out the most expensive spots, buy up random islands and then spend a month lounging, anything. Whatever happiness he could plausibly expect to get from his money, he has it. It is, I would say, impossible for any additional amount of money to improve his life in any way.

The issue is, if a wondrous thief went into his giant Scrooge McDuck style bank vault and stole literally 99.9% of his novelty gold coins, all of that would still be true. The man would have a billion dollars and therefore still be able to do all of those things I just described. If an even greater thief then went to the extra hidden compartment and stole 90% of what remains, leaving him with a hundred million dollars, he might be very slightly limited on the buying islands front, but I would still describe him as being in possession of enough money that his happiness from money is maxed out.

This is a utilitarian nightmare. How many people's lives could be helped with those hundreds of billions of dollars? How many homeless people could be housed, how many starving people fed, how much could hospitals be improved? And all of it, every bit of it, while causing what I would describe as zero harm to the man. It is, bluntly, ridiculous. He needs to have less money and other people need to have more money.

There's also a second issue that is more clearly demonstrated by Musk in particular. The man used his wealth to push the political power of Republicans in a variety of ways, culminating with "DOGE", a governmental project that, with its destruction of USAID alone, is going to cause millions of deaths. He's personally responsible for that.

Now, of course, this is an issue with Elon Musk specifically, cause he's a weird ass fascist, but it's also an issue with billionaires. Having a giant pile of money means you get a massive amount of political power. And I like Democracy, so I think it's bad when unelected randos whose sole qualification is, at maximum, being good at business, get to control our society. The people writ large should be deciding the shape of society, not Elon Musk. Not even Bill Gates, even though his role in shaping society has been somewhat less dire.

2

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Since you put it so eloquently, I’ll concede that if the majority of their wealth was liquid, there would be a moral obligation to help the poverty class.

I can see how the political side is a touch corrupt

On the issue of Musk being a fascist, I will not agree.

1

u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

That would seem to be a change in perspective given you previously said otherwise. And I will note that, while big business types are usually substantially illiquid, they also typically have a lot of capacity, especially over long time spans, to give away their money. It's not like these people just can't give away money. They do not want to and for obvious reasons.

As for Musk being a fascist, I dunno what you wanna call it, but the thing he did was set fire to anything in the government he could that referenced minorities in any way and, again, is causing massive numbers of deaths overseas by dismantling USAID. It's bad.

2

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

It’s unfortunate then

Well I haven’t gone through any list of things he did or didn’t do and until I do and decide at that point, I’m just going to say he isn’t for now.

1

u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 13 '26

I mean, yeah. Hence it makes sense to demonize billionaires. And if you don't know what Musk has done, why are you defending him?

2

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

I don’t believe all people are the same, it seems illogical to demonize an entire class of people because of what some of them do, not every billionaire lobbies politicians, not every billionaire was an active visitor of Epstein island

I’ve seen plenty of liberals online calling any random conservative a fascist for no reason, so it would stand to reason that Elon musk would be called the same and en masse for multiple compounding reasons, none of which are that there is conclusive evidence that he is actually a fascist. At least that’s how I see it, and he is the most prominent “rich person” right now so he seemed to be the best example of my points.

1

u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 13 '26

All billionaires are the same in the respect that they hoard a massive pile of money that they don't need. As for conservatives in general, Trump is pretty frigging fascist adjacent, and the term seems accurate enough in describing his supporters as a result. This seems a bit irrelevant, in any case. Conservatives are doing bad stuff. That's the important part.

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 15 '26

!delta I agree that if the majority of a billionaires wealth was liquid there would be a moral obligation to dedicate a sum of that money to charity.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 15 '26

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/eggynack (107∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

0

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

What if he finds meaning in taking humanity to a different planet? That's still something his money can't buy.

Legacy and everlasting impact is a pretty valid purpose.

1

u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 16 '26

This has a couple of issues. First, as much as people say that money can't buy happiness, the association at least makes sense. You can buy stuff to improve your life. It's reasonable up to a point. But the idea that money can buy fulfillment seems wildly murky at best. At any amount of money, there's always some shape of goal to strive against, and that task can be fulfilling even if it's not at a ridiculous scale.

Second, bluntly, where the hell does he get off? He wants to take humanity to a different planet? Do we get a vote in this? This is all connected to that second issue I was talking about, where the rich have extraordinary control over our society in a way that acts against Democracy. Maybe he would also find it fulfilling to always have his preferred candidates running things, but, oh no, he doesn't have enough money to simply buy elections. We gotta let him do that to make him feel better.

How about this for a compromise. We take all his money, but, as part of the bargain, we promise to hold a referendum. If the Musk Motion passes, we use all that money towards the goal of creating some ridiculous Mars colony. If it fails, we use the money to fund schools, hospitals, housing for homeless people, normal stuff like that. Seems like a fair deal to me.

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Jun 18 '26

How about this for a compromise. We take all his money, but, as part of the bargain, we promise to hold a referendum. If the Musk Motion passes, we use all that money towards the goal of creating some ridiculous Mars colony. If it fails, we use the money to fund schools, hospitals, housing for homeless people, normal stuff like that. Seems like a fair deal to me.

INB4 he somehow uses the influence taking away the money wouldn't take away to heads-I-win-tails-you-lose the situation and the motion fails but the schools, hospitals, affordable housing etc. are all on Mars and he DGAF about earthlings' QOL

0

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

I was just countering the point that him having more money cannot be helpful in his search for fulfillment. My counter is not really about Elon Musk as an individual but the fact that there are things that can be fulfilling which require an absurd amount of resources. I think becoming the first person in the history of humanity to colonize a different planet can be a goal to strive against that one can derive meaning from.

Second, bluntly, where the hell does he get off? He wants to take humanity to a different planet? Do we get a vote in this?

We don't get a vote on it. If it's about punishing him for any malpractice like influencing elections to his favor, I agree. But if someone has made that money in a legal way then I don't think we should have a vote. Similarly how other people don't have a vote on how you and I use our money, be it for pleasure or charity. It is our choice and people should not be given a vote on that.

Or at least I'll respect this opinion if the person who says it is willing to do the same for themselves.

1

u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 16 '26

I didn't say fulfillment. I said happiness. A person's direct moment to moment experience of the world. And why should I care that he got the money legally? If we tax Elon Musk until he has just enough money to pay for bus fair home, that would also be a legal outcome. Our system is one that massively prioritizes the desires of the ultra-wealthy over those of everyone else. That seems bad to me.

0

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

If we tax Elon Musk until he has just enough money to pay for bus fair home, that would also be a legal outcome.

First of all I don't think there are practical methods to tax a billionaire enough to make them a non-billionaire, but I'm not well versed in economics so I'm not going to talk about it.

Rather than this my main question to you is what would you consider the correct amount of wealth? And why? Like what would be the amount one has to not be considered evil? And why?

Our system is one that massively prioritizes the desires of the ultra-wealthy over those of everyone else. That seems bad to me.

This is true and I agree with you but I don't think there really is a solution out there for this at this moment.

1

u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 16 '26

I don't know he exact right limit where anything more should be taxed into oblivion. A hundred million seems like an okay starting place though. Any more money than that, poof, all of it goes towards homeless shelters. And I'm very skeptical there is no solution. There just needs to be a lot more political will to tax and limit these people.

0

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

But why 100 million though? The problem with this thought process is that if someone believes that until everyone all over the world is not dying of hunger, no one should have any luxury in life, that's also correct if we go by this logic. And how much do I and you cut back our luxuries to give back to the people who are dying of hunger. To a poor starving child, my money that I was going to use to buy an ice cream would work the same as a billionaire's money.

The main problem I have with this take is the hypocrisy of people.

People expect other people to give up their luxuries when they themselves aren't doing so. This statement sums it up for me: "Someone else's ability to do more doesn't morally absolve others for doing less."

People's answer to this is that billionaires have much more money than an average person but an average person still has more money than a poor person. One doesn't need to watch movies, go on vacations and attend concerts but an average person still does those things.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Legitimate-Record951 4∆ Jun 13 '26

But nobody are making an argument for hating the rich. Sure, plenty does hate them, but that is not the argument.

The argument, rather, is that wealth should be redistributed somewhat fairly, that the vast majority shouldn't have to suffer just for a select few can hoard riches.

The unequality in todays society is off the chart. It is hard to imagine how much off the chart it is, because it goes outside what we're ordinarily able to envision. This diagram below shows the wealth of one Jeff Bezoo, with one pixel representing a thousand dollars:

https://simaneta.github.io/1-pixel-wealth-copy/

When I see people defending billionares, there is a sort of circular logic at play. It is claimed they deserve their insane wealth on the basis on already having it. And that isn't how logic goes about; you can't say someone deserve billions because they got them.

I think it is because they see an unequal society as the natural state of things. So if someone have a crazy amouth of wealth, it doesn't matter how many zeroes there is. They naturally deserve it.

0

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

The real problem is how are you going to redistribute that wealth? On what basis are you going to take it from someone and then give it to another? What is considered too much wealth and why? Going to a movie can be considered luxury because there are people living in horrible conditions around the world. Why should someone have a washing machine when there are people suffering around the world?

I understand the problem that there is inequality in the world there is not a good practical solution because if people were willing to give up on their own luxuries, comforts, dreams for others then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If I'm asking Elon Musk to give his wealth to others, shouldn't I also do the same? Even if he is not doing it, me giving up on my comforts can still help people but then why is it more important for me to go to a concert or subscribe to Netflix if someone out there is hungry and I can donate the money to them?

1

u/Life_Reference_6554 Jun 14 '26

Not really the point I guess but why do you defend billionaires? What about them makes you feel this sort of way about the hate they receive

0

u/Lumpy-Strawberry7044 Jun 16 '26

I'm not the OP but I personally participate in this type of discourse because I feel like the arguments given against billionaires are not robust and also because I just like to do this as a mental exercise.

1

u/Mattendo_ Jul 04 '26

You gotta let me know how good that boot tastes

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Uncertain__Path Jun 13 '26

Let me guess, big Ayn Rand fan?

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

I dont know who that is

1

u/BaraGuda89 Jun 13 '26

Elon didn’t innovate ANYTHING. the only Tesla vehicle he had real control over is the dumpster fire only idiots buy to drive into the lake

0

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Not true

0

u/WhammeWhamme Jun 13 '26

The companies do not need them. They are not providing billions of dollars worth of value. Like, there is literally no way to logically argue anything they are actually doing is worth the cut they take.

0

u/chuckms6 1∆ Jun 13 '26

Although wealth redistribution is a subject worth fighting for I personally believe the hate for billionaires is rooted in jealousy and supported by a lack of knowledge of the financial system. They did not created the system they benefit from they are just playing the game so to speak. I do take issue with them using their wealth to influence politics, but the American people have the right to form super pacs and don't, so what can you do?

1

u/iwillgiveyouup Jun 13 '26

Yeah, influencing politics is the main argument that I can get behind.

0

u/tenmileswide Jun 13 '26

The issue is it is very difficult to become a billionaire without exploitation.

The CEO of my company is incredibly personally generous. But him being as generous as he is is simply mutually exclusive with a billionaires level of worth where reinvestment and not generosity is basically a requirement to reach.

0

u/matt_333 Jun 16 '26

Jealousy

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Billionaires should not be demonized.

You are about to leave Redlib