this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
99 points (97.1% liked)

Moving to: m/AskMbin!

1325 readers
1 users here now

### We are moving! **Join us in our new journey as we take a new direction towards the future for this community at mbin, find our new community here and read this post to know more about why we are moving. Thank you and we hope to see you there!**

founded 2 years ago
99
Can a rich person be a good person? (kbin.social)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
192 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't mean doctor-making-150k-a-year rich, I mean properly rich with millions to billions of dollars.

I think many will say yes, they can be, though it may be rare. I was tempted to. I thought more about it and I wondered, are you really a good person if you're hoarding enough money you and your family couldn't spend in 10 lifetimes?

I thought, if you're a good person, you wouldn't be rich. And if you're properly rich you're probably not a good person.

I don't know if it's fair or naive to say, but that's what I thought. Whether it's what I believe requires more thought.

There are a handful of ex-millionaires who are no longer millionaires because they cared for others in a way they couldn't care for themselves. Only a handful of course, I would say they are good people.

And in order to stay rich, you have to play your role and participate in a society that oppresses the poor which in turn maintains your wealth. Are you really still capable of being a good person?

Very curious about people's thoughts on this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I think if a good person were to amass half a billion dollars they would spent enough of it on charity that they could never become a billionaire. So there are no good billionaires, but perhaps a few good millionaires moving to ex-millionaire.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Moving to ex-millionaire? A million isn't even enough to retire in the US.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah that math is a little outdated. I think the "you have too much money" range has gone up to around $3-5 million now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think that's still far too low. If you own even a moderately successful small-medium sized business then you can get to the point where you have more than that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In personal wealth? Or does the wealth belong to the business?

Business investments or cash reserves or whatever are waaay beyond the scope of this discussion. That would have more to do with antitrust law and what a fair C suite compensation is.

If you started a small business and are wildly successful to the point that you, personally, have $7 million dollars? Then yes, you have too much money.

It's not "this is the amount of money a person starting from nothing can achieve".

It's "this is more money than any one person ever needs, regardless of where it came from".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

$7 million really isn't obscene money. If someone has a successful business and retires at 50 years old with $7 million in the bank, assuming they live to 90 that's only $175k per year. Depending on where you live that can range anywhere from very comfortable to barely getting by. Of course, you could invest it and assuming 4% annual yield that's $280k per year, which is the right way to do it. I personally have no issue with someone reaping the rewards of their success. I also think that the rich people hate is misplaced. Why are people mad at the wealthy for not picking up the government's slack, instead of being mad at the government for slacking in the first place?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

An aspect of the government not slacking is taxing wealth people and high earners more.

$280k per year

More money than any one person needs. Obviously not as obscene as the ultra wealthy, but there's a cutoff point somewhere in the $150k-200k range where you don't get any extra happiness out of money, it's just pure greed amassing more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Tax them how though? Honestly, most billionaires don't take a massive salary, many of them have an official salary that is wholly unimpressive. I think Bezos' official salary as CEO of Amazon was under $100k. And I am firmly against the idea of a wealth tax because that means you're taxing someone on money that they don't have. If I find a painting at goodwill that turns out to be worth $100 million, should I be expected to pay taxes on that $100 million even though I only make $20/hour? That would be totally unfair, you'd be taxing me on money I don't have.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If I find a painting at goodwill that turns out to be worth $100 million, should I be expected to pay taxes on that $100 million even though I only make $20/hour?

Obviously you sell the painting to pay the taxes on it. Then you still have $80 million or whatever. Sounds fair to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I simply disagree with taxing someone on the perceived value of an asset. I know that's how property taxes work, and yes, I disagree with that too. You shouldn't tax someone on simply owning an asset.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And you're okay with that making it functionally impossible to tax rich people?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I think the focus on rich people is misguided. You would get way more tax money by properly taxing corporations than you would by taxing billionaires. The personal income of even top level billionaires is still peanuts compared to corporate profits, which can be hundreds of billions per year. I don't care if Musk or Bezos has a personal wealth of hundreds of billions, that money doesn't exist, it's the hypothetical market value of their stock holdings. But major corporations do actually have hundreds of billions of actual liquid income every year, so to me that's fair game for taxing. If Walmart profits $150 billion in a year, then sure, go to town and heavily tax that, because that is actual money and not just value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement then. I see no reason to exempt wealth from taxation. Personal or corporate wealth.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

My thoughts as well, pretty much exactly what I meant in my post.

if you're a good person, you wouldn't be rich.

Hardly any millionaires become ex-millionaires by choice, it's that difference that can help distinguish the 'good ones' from the 'not good ones'. If they chose that route through donation, charity, whatever it may be, they are good. If it had to be ripped away from them through just natural shitty circumstances, and otherwise would keep being hoarded, not so much.