'Is it morally appropriate for anyone to be a billionaire?'


PREMO Member
Some Americans have much higher income and wealth than others. Former President Barack Obama explained, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." An adviser to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has a Twitter account called "Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure" tweeted, "My goal for this year is to get a moderator to ask 'Is it morally appropriate for anyone to be a billionaire?'" Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren, in calling for a wealth tax, complained, "The rich and powerful are taking so much for themselves and leaving so little for everyone else."

These people would have an argument if there were piles of money on the ground called income, with billionaires and millionaires surreptitiously getting to those piles first and taking their unfair shares. In that case, corrective public policy would require a redistribution of the income, wherein the ill-gotten gains of the few would be taken and returned to their rightful owners. The same could be said if there were a dealer of dollars who — because of his being a racist, sexist, multinationalist and maybe a Republican — didn't deal the dollars fairly. If he dealt millions to some and mere crumbs to others, decent public policy would demand a re-dealing of the dollars, or what some call income redistribution.



Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Fine! let's start with Congress. Is it morally appropriate for anyone in Congress to make $174K per year? Is it morally appropriate for anyone in Congress to be a millionaire?

If Congress wants to be morally outraged, then let them start in their own house and institute a 90% income tax on all members of Congress. Then institute a 90% tax on all their wealth over $1M. After all, how does someone making under $200K/year become a millionaire? Obviously they make too much, so I think it's morally inappropriate for them to keep that money.

But if they start today and complain about someone with $1B and they do "something" about it, how long before they will lower the bar and start complaining about someone with $500M?
Without the billionaires, and even the millionaires, there wouldn't be funding available for major multi-billion $ projects, projects that everyone wants but somehow can't afford to do themselves. Banks won't make a loan without collateral. Guess what they use for collateral? The wealth of the borrower.


Well-Known Member
The richest people in history are not alive today, John D Rockefeller was the richest American to ever live and Mansa Musa was the richest man ever live.

It's nothing more than a way to rouse the rabble to vote for them.


Well-Known Member
People like Andrew Carnegie - who would be a multi-billionaire in today's world - gave so much to the world with his wealth.
No one else could have done it. Ditto the Rockefellers.

The argument is well made that if these people had seized their wealth or achieved it in the misery of others,
it might make sense. But they didn't, most of them.

I've never wanted to start and run a business - because I don't have the ambition to work 80-100 hours a week
and be "on call" 24/7 like people I know who DO run a business. The work day never really ends. But I certainly
don't have the brass to chastise them when they become millionaires from their own hard work.

The REASON the young are warming to the idea of socialism is they believe that at their current station in life -
they will GAIN under a socialist environment. It is short-sighted; it's throwing away tomorrow to have something now.
They'd feel very differently if it meant sharing misery with everyone else, which it often becomes after a while.
People who HAVE - especially if they labor like hell to get it are not going to see the confiscation of their years
of work as a good thing. Once the youth of today realize - as they get older - if they have ANY ambition - socialism
is shared misery.


Well-Known Member
I also have no wish to be lectured on morality from the likes of these folks, especially Hollywood.
I'm content to live my life and mind my own business and do good with it as I see fit.
I'd consider their arguments more forceful if they lived morally exemplary lives; if the rich among
them lived frugally and gave generously instead of tossing their crumbs.


I wish these economic justice warriors would give us a definitive line of what amount wealth is moral.

Nancy Pelosi's net worth is est: $120 million.
Barack Obama net worth is est: $40 million
Bill Clinton net worth is est: $80 million
Mark Warner is est: $92 million

Having these exorbitant amounts of wealth immoral, or no? Please someone, where is that moral line.