Why do billionaires need so much money?

Where would you draw the line ?

After going for the billionaires, will you set your sights on the multimillionaires, then the millionaires, working down the list so that we all earn the same amount and anything else is not possible?

Not a country or even a continent I want to live in.

MaizieD

SuzyG

Does it matter? Really? The Press also have a lot to answer for. We don't really know these people do we?

It matters because:

Firstly, they are sucking money out of the global economy which, if more equably distributed could alleviate so much poverty and help countries to deal with the devastating effects of climate change. To protect their wealth they work to support the economic ideologies which ensure that wealth does flow upwards.

Secondly: they are using up a hugely disproportionate share of the world's finite resources. They are adding to global warming in a big way by use of private jets and luxury yacht. did you know that one private jet emits more carbon than would a full passenger aircraft?

Thirdly: The few philanthropists among them can barely scratch the surface of the amount of money needed to lift a huge number of the global population out of poverty and want.

I have said before, I have no problem with people being in business and earning themselves a comfortable living. So long, of course, they ensure that the people who work for them earn enough to live comfortably, too, but I'd like it to be done within an economic system which curtails the upward flow of money, ensures a more equable distribution and discourages the acquisition of wealth just for the sake of being wealthy.

What do you think the solution is and are you involved in improving the situation?

Because if your only measure of success is how much money you have then you can only succeed by amassing more. It's never ending. You can never have enough.

Seems that Bill Gates is spending his billions (along with Rotary) on diseases and worldwide health, seems worthy to me.

AreWeThereYet

A long time ago I asked a multi millionaire who owned the company I worked for if he thought it fair that some had so much while others had nothing. He told me:

A mathematician once worked out that if all the money in the world was split across the number of people in the world we would all get about 10p. Which would make us all equal. But there would be no business, no food production, no care system because no one would have the means of supplying it. Until some groups banded together and started to put their 10p's together to supply others with the things they needed, growing food and making clothes. Eventually those 'bands' would be 'the rich and powerful' and the others would be the employed and the poor. Some of the rich would fail, some of the poor would get richer and so it would go on until we got back to where we are.

That was a "neat" answer he gave you.

But like a few others have said, the gap between rich and poor is far too wide nowadays.

The poor are barely coping. Not much new there.
But some of the wealthy have become far too wealthy.
Bonuses and massive pensions, and huge eg footballer salaries, to name but a tiny number.

GrannyGravy13 The poor cannot spend what they haven’t got, so how are the rich extracting money from the poor. ?

Easy. Unfortunately.
Much higher petrol prices than there needs to be. Ditto electricity/gas.
I would even add, controversially, council tax with all the added net zero costs.

But it would still be only a couple of £s each, may be enough to buy a round of drinks or a curry to celebrate.

In return government incomes would plummet and there would be little or no money to spend on health or care or anything else because none of us would have enough money to pay much tax.

AreWeThereYet
That must have been a long time ago.
Bill Gates wealth is approximately $130 billion. World population at last count 7 billion.
The Panama Papers estimate that at least 40 trillion is hidden in offshore accounts.
So Bill alone could give everyone in the world more than 10p.

MaizieD I have read the Wealth of Nations and I have never scoffed at it or been against moderating the power and wealth of people where this is otherwise damaging society.

But you wrote on this thread praising the work of someone and their scheme for doing this and as you presented it, I could not understand how it would work. I read the links and was still no wiser.

However I naturally assumed that if you were saying how wonderful it was you would understand what it was about and how it worked, so naturally I looked to you to explain it.

The book on it has already been written but I assumed like most such theories it can be summed up simply in a couple of sentences and paragraphs and as you were tso enthusiastic about it you would be able do so. Surely you would never start enthusing about something unless you fully understood it.

I think I have every reason to be disappointed and surprised that you would promote a nice idea without having a clue as how it would work or whether it would work.

M0nica

^anyway, I'm done^ MaizieD

which presumably means she doesn't intend to answer any of the questions I have asked about the mechanics of how the system would work.

I can only assume it is because she hasn't got a clue how it would work.It is a wonderful life going round espousing causes while not having a any idea how they work.

Good God, you can be rude, can't you MOnica.

If I were to have a fully worked out theory of how the mechanics would work it would be a very long essay or small book which you would read and scoff at anyway.

Perhaps you should read The Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith had plenty to say about equity, curtailing the acquisition of 'riches' by taxation and legislation, and the regulation of markets.

Perhaps you would scoff at him, too, though...

and, by the way, i am still waiting for a definition of what 'rich' or 'wealthy' means.

is it an income of £50,000? £100,000, £500,000? £1,million? and/or how much capital, £10 million? £100million, £1 billion. What if most of the capital is a factories and equipment where things are made and people have jobs?

It is wonderful having these airy fairy discussions, but they are very short on hard nitty gritty facts.

But who says the rich say they need it. No one has offered any evidence that that is so. In fact many rich people give so much away, it is very clear that they do not think they need it.

For many of them it is simply the inevitable result of developing a successful business, whether it sells cars, or is the result of a brilliant invention or providing a much in demand service.

Wealth distribution simply means taxation Grantanow. And then the government decides what to spend it on - which is probably not the poor,

To answer the OP's original post I assume the rich think they need it (or want it) for a variety of reasons. Personally I think they have too much and we need a better system of wealth distribution but I approve those who have made very large donations (e.g. Gates in Africa). I'm less impressed by those who simply give 1% or small change.

AreWeThereYet

A long time ago I asked a multi millionaire who owned the company I worked for if he thought it fair that some had so much while others had nothing. He told me:

A mathematician once worked out that if all the money in the world was split across the number of people in the world we would all get about 10p. Which would make us all equal. But there would be no business, no food production, no care system because no one would have the means of supplying it. Until some groups banded together and started to put their 10p's together to supply others with the things they needed, growing food and making clothes. Eventually those 'bands' would be 'the rich and powerful' and the others would be the employed and the poor. Some of the rich would fail, some of the poor would get richer and so it would go on until we got back to where we are.

There, right there. ^

Think about food. You might have a garden, but if you have moles, insects, a bad season - your plot may fail you. Farm crops are spread across 70% of the country. Farmers are semi working together, so we all eat. They have costs, employees, and expect a reasonable profit for their investment and time.

anyway, I'm done MaizieD

which presumably means she doesn't intend to answer any of the questions I have asked about the mechanics of how the system would work.

I can only assume it is because she hasn't got a clue how it would work.It is a wonderful life going round espousing causes while not having a any idea how they work.

Like I said upthread, there are a myriad of reasons why people are on a low income.

And they are what, GG13?

I am all for an adequate safety net for those unable to work for whatever reason and for as long as it is needed. It needs to be increased (from the little I know).

I'm not talking about those who are unable to work. I am talking about those who work to make the profits which enrich people, be those people company owners or the upper echelons of management. The gap between worker and management pay has massively widened over the past 50 years. Why should that be? The world still turned on its axis when the differential was far less and management was was perfectly satisfied with what they earned.

The poor cannot spend what they haven’t got, so how are the rich extracting money from the poor. ?

Even the poor spend money on things, GG13. Even basic necessities are produced for profit. But really my comment applies to all consumers.

Look at the markups quoted much earlier on this thread. Do you think that the high ones are reasonable? They're opportunistic, charging what the market will bear, not a fair price for a fair service or product. I'm sure you are far more familiar with pricing than I am, but I do know about accounting for overheads, replacement of materials/machinery, allowing for contingencies etc.

I'll not go into share dividends, another source of unearned money. Another time, maybe..

I think it is unworkable to put a limit on what anyone can earn, you would have an army of accountants employed to oversee that companies and individuals stayed below the limit . I am not sure that would benefit the lower paid, only line the pockets of specialised accountancy firms which rather defeats yours and others plan.

Was I suggesting a limit on earnings? Certainly Prof Robeyn was, but at a level far higher than most people could ever hope to earn. In the mean time we could tax progressively to discourage excessive accumulation.

On the other hand, we seem to mange a minimum wage without too much bother (which has never actually equalled a living wage, but that's another tale, too). And the people earning the minimum usually have to work pretty hard to earn it, yet their hard work doesn't seem to attract the applause that billionaires get...

Keeping money in the domestic economy rather than letting it disappear into already enormous bank accounts would be far more beneficial to all (except those poor misunderstood billionaires).

Anyway, I'm done.

A long time ago I asked a multi millionaire who owned the company I worked for if he thought it fair that some had so much while others had nothing. He told me:

A mathematician once worked out that if all the money in the world was split across the number of people in the world we would all get about 10p. Which would make us all equal. But there would be no business, no food production, no care system because no one would have the means of supplying it. Until some groups banded together and started to put their 10p's together to supply others with the things they needed, growing food and making clothes. Eventually those 'bands' would be 'the rich and powerful' and the others would be the employed and the poor. Some of the rich would fail, some of the poor would get richer and so it would go on until we got back to where we are.

Remember that giant self-storage complex in the movie Tenet, where Kenneth Branagh hides his Goya? Free ports—tax-free zones near shipping ports or airports—are a real thing, and a preferred tool for the ultrawealthy to move or park an expensive material asset. In Switzerland, nonresidents can store their goods for as long as they want without paying taxes on them, and they can do it virtually anonymously thanks to lax reporting of their beneficial ownership requirements—regulations to identify who controls a company or asset.

Free ports are especially popular destinations for expensive art collections; the Geneva Free Port holds three times as much artwork as the Louvre, and 1,000 Picassos alone.

Germanshepherdsmum

Wealth over 50k red1? However did you arrive at that figure? Did you miss some zeros off?

Surely must be £5,000,000.

*MaizieD Let me put it very simply for you. I aam wanting to know how the system would work

John Doe invents a super sprogget, everyone making electric cars wants them. He is soon making and selling lots of sprogetts and developing new ones.He has a big factory and research department and is full of good ideas for new products.

How would you know when the business was worth £10 million?
Is the business being worth £10m the same as Jo Doe being worth £10 million?
What happens if he comes up with a super sprogget and sells even more.

In other words how would the system work?

Most houses are worth well in excess of £50,000. Then there is money put aside for care costs.

My aunt was in a care home for 6 years = 312 weeks @ £1,000 a year ==£312,000, less state and occupational pension, say £20,000 Year = £312,000 -120,000 = £192,000 of private capital to meet care costs. If the limit of personal wealth is £50,000 how does anyone pay for their care fees?

Wealth over 50k red1? However did you arrive at that figure? Did you miss some zeros off?

As much as I abhor the obscene wealth that some have made, my biggest problem is the political clout that some have achieved. Bill Gates being one such.
Then there is the prime example, Donald Trump.

mitpressbookstore.mit.edu/book/9781250850096
The above is a review of a book on Bill Gates.

petra

red1

would it a better world if the rich gave the money someone who would reditribute it, say on wealth over 50k.
am i dreaming? unfortunately yes.

I don’t think you’ve thought that idea through, red1
Are you seriously saying that everyone, business or private once they have £50k sitting in their account should distribute the excess.
Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

If that comes in I and the rest of our clan are off to The Caymans…