• @Poob
    link
    409 months ago

    They sure aren’t. They give up their wealth, but by doing so gain more power. They get to decide what is important for the world by dumping millions of dollars in their favourite charities. Charities that they conveniently get to put their names on to feel good about themselves.

    • Nepenthe
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      So they’re not allowed to have the money…and they’re also not allowed to donate it? Am I clear? Because that seems stupid, tbh.

      The world worked a little better when philanthropy was encouraged for the tax break. It always will. They get their cute little name on a plaque, whatever. The money goes where it’s needed.

      This is not to say anyone needs to be able to make that much in the first place, but demonizing one for also getting rid of it is funny

      • @Poob
        link
        46
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The money goes where they want it to go, which is frequently not where it’s needed.

        And you are correct, they should not have the money, since they didn’t earn it. They also shouldn’t get to decide where it goes, since they aren’t suited to make those decisions. It should be taken from them.

        • gullible
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Behold, I am a pedant that agrees with you! However, I do believe that billionaires earned their money… in the same way that a plantation owner earned their terrifying hoard; using their complete moral depravity and means.

          • @Poob
            link
            89 months ago

            See you call that earning. I call it stealing. When something is earned, it would be wrong to take it from them.

            • gullible
              link
              fedilink
              29 months ago

              Vikings earned their broadly spread genetics in much the same way, complete moral depravity and means. Just because something is stolen doesn’t make it unearned, and just because something is earned doesn’t entitle possession. Theft begets reprisal.

                • gullible
                  link
                  fedilink
                  19 months ago

                  Just examples to illustrate that earning, deserving, rightfully belonging, etc. aren’t necessarily the right words to use in this context, but I guess it could be seen as vaguely communist in the right light. More sociological than political, though. Tax the rich, jail the physically and sexually belligerent.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    19 months ago

                    it’s not a communist sentiment at all. labor theory of value is predicated on socially necessary labor not just doing any old thing.

                    what youre doing with those statements though is pretty disingenuous. the idea of earning comes from labor (it’s literally the germanic to english word for a laborer and their pay) and has always meant that the subject of the verb deserves the object.

                    you could argue that the raiding parties believed they had earned their spoils, but in a human culture that generally doesn’t hold that belief, saying it without that qualifier implies assent to the ancient raiding parties belief.

      • TinyPizza
        link
        fedilink
        119 months ago

        I believe they’re alluding to the wealthy funneling their money into foundations and other “charitable” endeavors as basically being a money wash that also comes with a lot of power to influence things. Their charity comes with strings and when you’re talking about the vast sums they wield, it has the ability to derail other charities or efforts that may have been more focused on the actual task/problem. If NPR decides not to run a story critical of Microsoft or the Gates’s because the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are donors, does that charity still have a net positive effect?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        179 months ago

        No, because it is literally impossible to become a billionaire without exploitation.

        Millionaire? Possible. Billionaire? No moral way.

          • DessertStorms
            link
            fedilink
            139 months ago

            lmfao, right, because you complicit “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” are a real treat…

            Here’s a hint for you: no matter how much boot you lick, or how much you defend the indefensible, they’re never going to know you exist and you’re never going to be one of them, so you’re not only humiliating yourself for nothing and shooting your own foot, but the rest of our feet, too, by allowing those who exploit us all (yourself included) to continue to do so uninterrupted while their hoards of pathetic sycophants fight their battles for them.

            Clown.

          • theodewere
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            try this for tedium… if you don’t understand that being a billionaire is unethical, you aren’t human… because that sentiment only grows from here, so you need to get used to it…

      • @Poob
        link
        89 months ago

        I’m not quite sure what you’re missing. The entire premise of those post and this thread is that we don’t think billionaires should be allowed to keep their money and power because being a billionaire is morally wrong. Why would we let them “win?”