Why do people feel they are entitled to the money of others?

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101188#Comment_118101188

Nothing to say successful entrepreneurs would not have succeeded in another sector, I’m waiting for you to tell me why anyone who had access to the same computers isn’t a billionaire.

What exactly is your argument, that these people didn’t start their businesses from scratch, or the fact that they had rich parents meant success was easier/inevitable?

magicbastarder

as mentioned, malcolm gladwell estimated that there were probably 50 people *on the planet* who were as blessed with luck as gates was - right age, right time, right place, right friends - in order to capitalise on the very infant personal computing scene. it just so happened, IIRC, that another of those people was paul allen.

DoctorEdgeWild

I've no idea why people put so much thought and energy into what other people are achieving, or how they are achieving it.

I see those massive Insta or Youtube stars driving around in Ferraris while I drive my 1991 car to a factory and on a bad day, it can sting a bit, but in general, that's the gamble of society. Some people succeed and some people fail, most of us just float around the middle a bit.

Begrudging people who made billions just seems a little sad to me.

generic_throwaway

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101414#Comment_118101414

Again, I don't see a lot of begrudging on the thread here (and to be fair, you are not suggesting you do either). The point being made is that it would probably make sense if a greater share of the bilionaires' wealth went back to the society that allowed them to succeed. It's hard to see the benefit of hundreds of billions of euros (and the power that comes with that) in the hands of somebody who nobody voted for, and who is accountable to nobody.

The other point being made is that these folks did it entirely on their own and owe nothing to anybody. Quite how Amazon or Apple or Google would succeed in a world without literate people, roads, publicly funded technological research, the rule of law etc. etc. remains unaddressed by the people making this argument.

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101482#Comment_118101482

We probably agree on more than we disagree about, but the sticking point for me is that it's not a fair system to take something from someone who has earned it within the law. (I know this brings us into the territory of taxes, equality of opportunity/outcome etc.)

If I need £600 to pay my rent next month, I don't think you should have to give it to me, just because you have it.*

*Although I will accept donations! 😉

dulpit

Tax the billionaires fairly, and have them pay their fair share and everybody would be happy. But instead they go for tax avoiding and minimisation routes that regular people can't avail of - that's where people get annoyed.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118100992#Comment_118100992

Wealth is 99.9% upbringing, 0.1% luck.

While I would agree that background is hugely important, other factors are at play too. Luck is a massive part of it. When and where you're born has just as much influence as who you are born to, if not more. If Paul McCartney had been born in Peru in 1980 the chances of him being a songwriter, never mind a world famous one would be slim to none. If Bill Gates had been born in 1910, or last year he wouldn't have been at the birth of what would become personal computing. If he had been born in Mongolia he'd have been completely out of the picture. By virtue of being born in the US and in the period when he was born alone made a huge difference. And he was passionate about computing, just at the right time. Even if he hadn't come from money, if he'd been into computers and had some access to others in that circle, chances are good he'd have ended up pretty well off. Many of the first employees of Microsoft and Apple did just that.

Then there are other factors like health and something as basic as physical and mental energy. Some can work for 16 hour days year in year out for decades, others can't. Even among those who can handle that workload vanishingly few have the brains, ideas or luck to become very wealthy. I know people like that. People who are pretty much workaholics and while they're mostly comfortable enough, none are wealthy(and most have gone through ups and downs). On the other hand I know one lad who was lucky to be in at the start of an emerging tech that went massive, a lad who wouldn't work in a fit, who isn't particularly talented in the area he made his money, who today is worth a few milllion and was retired by 35.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101305#Comment_118101305

I’m waiting for you to tell me why anyone who had access to the same computers isn’t a billionaire.

A large number of men and women who were around and involved in the US based birth of personal computing did become very wealthy. Like I noted above the first, second even third group of employees of companies like Apple, Microsoft and the like. If they just stuck around and hung on, because of stock options and the like they became very comfortable indeed. There are most certainly better coders who are members of this very site who will never see similar. It's like a gold rush. The early prospectors are the ones most likely to make the most cash, the promise of that brings more in and yes some will make bank, but the returns diminish.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101414#Comment_118101414

I would strongly suggest checking out this site because i dont think you, like many others, grasp the absolute vast chasm there is between people like bezos and musk and the rest of us

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

Thats not an insult in case you take it that way, as i mentioned when i first posted this earlier in the thread our brains simply cannot comprehend how big the gap is without visual aids. I say this specifically in response to you because using the example of some wealthy youtubers as your argument of bregrudery really makes no sense considering they are far closer to the average person in terms of wealth than they are to these hoarding dragons.

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101715#Comment_118101715

I 100% accept the scale of difference.

I accept that the people in question have wealth so vast that it is incomparable to mine, yours, David Beckham's etc.

It's not a lack of understanding.

I think calling them hoarding dragons maybe shows some begrudgery? They earned the money, if we want them to be taxed further/differently, that's up to who we elect to run the show.

It's not a question of scale, for me, the money is theirs, not mine.

joseywhales

I don't care what other's have but I do care about the utility of money. If Bezos died tomorrow, the value of amazon to society would not really be affected, another CEO would probably do just as good a job representing the company. Also its not like Bezos is really worth 200 billion, if he liquidated all of his assets in one day, I wonder would he end up with maybe 50 billion? 10billion? I've no idea, as soon as people figured out what he was doing the market would devalue his assets.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101776#Comment_118101776

I don't begrudge them what they have earned at all, I begrudge the fact that they dont pay their fair share of tax or give anything close to an impactful amount back via philanthropy. Instead the likes of Bezos fights to remove rights from his employees and even cut their pay. I do question the system that allows them to do so and be able to increase their wealth to such an extent in the last 2 years of chaos.

I also think at a certain level of wealth begrudgery is absolutely be warranted especially if you are so unwilling as the likes of Musk and Bezos seemingly are to give back and instead have decided to engage in a space race pissing contest. Musks own argument against paying more tax is "they will be coming for you next" showing his cluelessness that we all already pay far more tax as a percentage of our own wealth than he ever has which is all he is being asked to do.

It is their refusal to pay their fair share and consider giving back that makes the term hoarding dragons in my opinion the perfect imagery to describe them.

jmayo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058215541/why-do-people-feel-they-are-entitled-to-the-money-of-others

The thing that most surprises me is that ordinary people defend the right of billionaires not to pay tax.

It is the most moronic thing I have ever seen.

Now typically it has been an American thing, where normal workers with fook all or even workers doing ok will vote for politicians and political parties that give tax breaks to the super rich in order that they become richer.

Maybe it's because they believe that the American Dream will allow them be super rich soon.

But I guess we are adopting all things American these days including this absolutely moronic outlook.

How is it fair that the likes of Bezos, Gate, Buffett, Musk who own billions in wealth can actually end up paying less tax than a worker at the bottom of one of the organisations they own?

Oh and another trope totted out in these debates is that they work hard or are very smart.

Bullshyte.

Does Bezos work harder than some poor devil in one of his warehouses that might also have a second job to make ends meet ?

Does Gates, Musk, etc work harder than some poor bastard starting out in their business working 12 hours a day 7 days a week?

Do they work a billion times more harder than anyone ?

Oh and then there is the crap that they are so smart.

Are any of them a billion times smarted than even the biggest thicko in the world?

Hell are any of them smarter than say a leading scientist on a totally income taxed salary from a university research lab looking for the cure for cancer, parkinsons, COVID, etc.

Are they going to make a bigger contribution to humanity than those scientists on a fixed salary ?

A lot of these guys are indeed smart enough and do work relatively hard, but their absolute massive wealth is down to very favourable tax regulations and a large slice of plain old luck.

And part of that luck is being in the right place at the right time and spotting an opportunity.

generic_throwaway

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101503#Comment_118101503

If I were a billionaire, I would most certainly give it to you. But it would probably make more sense for more of my wealth to go towards infrastructure, education etc. to help my fellow humans in a scaleable way.

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101896#Comment_118101896

Then your argument is with the governments who make the rules. It's not the billionaires who make the rules of the country re. tax.

For what it's worth, I agree with you on that. Governments need to balance their ability to attract big companies in and make sure they pay for what they get.

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102090#Comment_118102090

It would certainly be a better use of your money, for the good of society...

...but I don't think you should be forced to. It's still your money.

That's probably the bit where we differ.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102104#Comment_118102104

Except it is when they use their vast wealth or public platforms to lobby against changes to make them pay their fair share of tax

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102119#Comment_118102119

Lobbying is not breaking the law. We all do what we can to protect what we've earned surely? We have mortgage protection, life assurance, etc. If we see an opportunity in work for promotion or extra opportunity, we go for it.

It's still down to the governments to do the law making etc.

djan

Interesting to see how fine the line is for many between enforcing and sustaining the right of private ownership within society and its opposite. While the gap between the common Irish person and the likes of Bezos is huge, someone living on 2 dollars per month in sub-Saharan Africa may also see people earning 3,000 a month as hugely unfair and to be made share the spoils.

Seems that it really boils down to lack of equal taxation. I propose that taxation should be a flat amount of 15% (calculated to be sufficient for US economy to "function" similarly to now) for everyone, regardless if you make 20k or 20billion a year. This would stimulate productivity due to people not foregoing overtimes/promotions where the higher tax brackets may dissuade from taking on additional work and stress. Similarly, would create an equality of sorts among society as everyone contributes an equal share.

Regarding the "the rich don't work x times harder than the average Joe" argument doesn't make sense to me. One doesn't and shouldn't get compensated for how hard they work but rather by how much someone is willing to pay for that service/good produced. As the old adage goes, work smarter not harder.

jmayo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102104#Comment_118102104

Actually the likes of those despicable Koch brothers spend millions on influencing politicians to offer tax breaks to them and other very rich people.

Who do you think influences government ?

Who appears at the likes of Davos as well as the politicians ?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102114#Comment_118102114

But where did these people get their money, their massive wealth from ?

They didn't just magic up the money.

They earned their wealth through the enterprises that they founded, created, ran.

Amazon (and by extension Bezos) would not have had the massive cash reserves, thus the massive spending power, thus the massive share value if it wasn't for the fact that they paid fook all in tax on earnings by washing their income through tax havens.

Amazon's employees don't have that luxury.

Likwise with Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple all of which are sited in places allowing very very low taxes.

Or they register their IP in a tax haven along with a PO BOX.

It is easy for Apple to have bigger cash reserves than most states when they make billions in revenue, but pay fook all in taxes.

And founders and owners of these companies get rich through these enterprises.

Richard Hillman

I agree that when people come up with great ideas that they should be able to profit greatly from them, like Gates, Musk and Bezos.

I do think though that we are entering into level of wealth's that are potentially making individuals far too powerful and will eventually make them far powerful than their own states. The 3 mentioned have accrued their wealth mostly in America, so their power is quite limited.

But if just say an Irish person came up with an amazing idea and became a Super Billionaire, having 1 single person with so much wealth accrued and power within a small state would enable a single person to hold the country to ransom. And thats never a good idea.

We've been lucky there hasn't been a nutter Super Billionaire, although it will happen.

Musk does his own thing with Innovation, although he does f**k up the crypto market from time to time.

Bezos is destroying the retail business and essentially wants to become the sole provider of retail. He worries me the most.

Bill Gates is a creep. I think he is now the biggest land owner in the US. He has far too much influence in politics and health.

I don't care if people want to accrue wealth and fly themselves to the moon. Grand. But when they are entering into public policy, creating monopolies and influencing governance, that cannot be tolerated.

magicbastarder

we've already had one example of a billionaire in ireland who used his wealth and clout to try to suppress media attention of his activities.

Wibbs

Billionaires like the ones mentioned on this thread are "in plain sight". They don't worry me as far as society goes, or at least not nearly to the degree an outfit like Blackrock does. They only started in 1988 and now are the single largest asset manager on the planet with over nine trillion dollars on their books. Vanguard is another such company and they have stakes in each other. Between them they're in control of twenty trillion quid and they have their fingers in damned near every pie. Including companies like Amazon. The majority of the US media you read and watch, has got either of that lot involved as major if not the largest shareholders and not just in the US. The medicines you take? Heavily connected to the pharmaceutical industry too. Real estate? They're buying up large tracts of housing and above market value just to control the market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4foal20UTA

That lot should concern us far more than Bezos or Gates.

generic_throwaway

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102141#Comment_118102141

Unfortunately, that presumes a word where the same wealth does not buy you influence, power and politicians. If you think that isn't the case, you have a solid point. But if you think that Musk and Bezos can bribe or buy their way to the tax regime that suits them, you might want to reconsider.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102166#Comment_118102166

Flat tax rate? Come off it... Renua tried that as a policy and we all saw how that went. Assuming that 15% of 20k is as fair as 15% of 2million is naive...

Tony EH

Poll taxes don't work. The poor end up significantly worse off. Thatcher found that out to her detriment.

djan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102589#Comment_118102589

Yes, a flat tax rate of lets say 15%, with flexibility for allowing low earners to offset this by setting tax credits accordingly depending on individual needs.

Funnily enough, one could argue that paying 15% of 2 million in tax as an individual is less fair than 15% of 20k as the level of service offered to the citizens by government is the exact same even though the millionaire pays a hell of a lot more for it.

There are countries in the EU that have flat tax rates on income of individuals and it works rather well. In fact has saved substantial money from more people declaring and lesser costs of operations on local versions of revenue, accounting, payroll etc.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102672#Comment_118102672

Not sure if aimed at me, but I was proposing a flat rate of 15% on income and not a fixed price poll tax per person.

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102501#Comment_118102501

So in order to stop politicians taking bribes or being influenced, we take away people's earnings so that they can't exert that influence? That seems a very backward way of doing it. Maybe the focus should be on the politicians rather than the people earning the money?

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102706#Comment_118102706

We live in a society, paying tax isn't a consumer model where you should get more from putting more in, or feeling like those who get more should pay more tax.

A progressive tax rate is a good thing. From those who can pay to those who need help. We've seen with covid that in a time of crisis, the state needs to step in, we need to be thinking of the collective and not individuals.

generic_throwaway

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118102775#Comment_118102775

Well we should do both. And we appear to be doing what we can on the politics side (and failing).

Again, we are not talking about taking all of someone's earnings. I'm a high earner myself, and I know the pain of paying masses of tax. But I'm baffled that it's considered acceptable for me to pay 40% of my total income in taxes, while billionaires paying almost nothing.