Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Only a loony communist/lefty would find extreme wealth ''immoral''.

    The world has and always will be about the survival of the fittest. Nowadays wealth is a sign of being the ''fittest''. As long as the extreme wealthy aren't using their money for immoral causes [ie killing people with it etc] then there's nothing immoral about being extremely wealthy.
    This

    Liberals populate this forum so I'm hardly suprised at the responses, but "immoral wealth" is some arbitrary figure that is completely subjective and impossible to determine

    What if every reasonably well of family in every first world country (say with a household income of 30k+) gave £5000 a year each towards charitable causes, or solving wealth inequality. Fair to say that any family could easily do such a thing, all it would mean is sacrificing a few luxuries, expensive cars, computers, large TVs, things which any underpriviliged person would deem as "excessive". If every family did that, they would contribute more money than any single billionaire ever could.

    But do they? No, their iPads and designer clothes are far more important to them. So they really have no reason to demand that billionaires donate the majority of their hard earned fortunes for charitable causes. That is some idiotic left wing bull****
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Only a loony communist/lefty would find extreme wealth ''immoral''.

    The world has and always will be about the survival of the fittest. Nowadays wealth is a sign of being the ''fittest''. As long as the extreme wealthy aren't using their money for immoral causes [ie killing people with it etc] then there's nothing immoral about being extremely wealthy.
    I fail to see how thinking its wrong that some people have more wealth than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes; while millions of people die because they can't afford food, water or even the most basic medicine, is a view confined to the "loony left" or "communists".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by combbrah)
    This

    Liberals populate this forum so I'm hardly suprised at the responses, but "immoral wealth" is some arbitrary figure that is completely subjective and impossible to determine

    What if every reasonably well of family in every first world country (say with a household income of 30k+) gave £5000 a year each towards charitable causes, or solving wealth inequality. Fair to say that any family could easily do such a thing, all it would mean is sacrificing a few luxuries, expensive cars, computers, large TVs, things which any underpriviliged person would deem as "excessive". If every family did that, they would contribute more money than any single billionaire ever could.

    But do they? No, their iPads and designer clothes are far more important to them. So they really have no reason to demand that billionaires donate the majority of their hard earned fortunes for charitable causes. That is some idiotic left wing bull****
    See

    (Original post by DaveSmith99)

    The problem is not the middle classes and their ipads. It's the mega rich and their greed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It depends how the wealth is acquired.

    A lot of wealth nowadays is accrued by means which I would not consider moral. Businesses sustained through corporate welfare, bankers losses being socialised for later generations to deal with, companies being offered competition-free markets by the state, companies making huge profits from PFI contracts etc etc etc

    Being wealthy itself is amoral, it is just a fact of life that a hierarchy of wealth will exist; however, many people are wealthy because of coercion or the exclusion of production for others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    The problem is not the middle classes and their ipads. It's the mega rich and their greed.
    It's the mega rich and their political friends who support them financially and stamp out any competition that threatens their position.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    I'm not sure about Bill Gates, microsoft had a monopoly on software for years.

    He'd probably still be massively wealthy if they hadn't but to say he deserves all the money he has accumulated isn't necessarily true.
    To be fair to Gates, he is an excellent philanthropist. Jobs... not so much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    See



    The problem is not the middle classes and their ipads. It's the mega rich and their greed.
    That is a global distribution scale, in which case the top "0.1%" or even top "0.01" are unlikely to be "mega rich" by our standards

    Even if we're talking about our typical definition of mega rich, ie the multi millionaires and billionaires, these guys stimulate the economy massively and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Their companies innovate and bring technologies and services to people who previously would never had access. Calling such people immoral has to be the most ridiculous notion ever
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Obvious answer is obvious - so you can own more expensive items and materialistic goods.
    (Original post by 321zero)
    And that is why I think aspiring to be mega wealthy is just greed and envy.
    Whilst i think there will be an element of greed in most cases that may not be sole driving force. Personally whilst i will never get close i would in a hypothetical world like to achieve $10bn because whilst i will squander some of that of material possessions i would very much like to further my wild dream of setting foot on another habitable planet (or at least for my children to do so) and to further such technological development and research even if unlikely requires a lot of money.

    I think greed only really explains your first £1 billion perhaps, afterward most people will have a wild dream that they want to achieve.

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It gets complicated when you come down to specific people - some would argue that Bill Gates as a young man was mainly someone who stole other people's good ideas (notably the people at Xerox and then Apple) and made a great deal of money out of them through good business skills rather than invention - isn't it also arguable that the Microsoft stranglehold over operating systems then choked innovation for decades until smartphones and tablets made an appearance? Therefore, does Gates "deserve" his wealth more than, say, Paul McCartney, who at least honestly entertained many millions of people?
    Being fair the only original Apple product was the Ipod, the original Iphone was actually just a crap phone with a touch screen and essentially an improvement on the flop that was the Sony Errickson P910I, it's only in later versions that it was actually driven by innovation. The Ipad is essentially what they had on many sci-fi shows though i'll give them half marks for originality on that.

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Surely there's a big difference in moral terms between having made great wealth in one's own lifetime through doing something extraordinary and simply inheriting it?
    That's an excellent point.

    It really annoys me as a capitalist when people say that i want to protect peoples wealth when in reality i only want to protect the wealth of those who have achieved something to get it, if their heir blows there money on a failed venture then they rightfully fail.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by combbrah)
    That is a global distribution scale, in which case the top "0.1%" or even top "0.01" are unlikely to be "mega rich" by our standards

    Even if we're talking about our typical definition of mega rich, ie the multi millionaires and billionaires, these guys stimulate the economy massively and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Their companies innovate and bring technologies and services to people who previously would never had access. Calling such people immoral has to be the most ridiculous notion ever
    Well that richest group consists of 91000 people, and its just liquid wealth. 16.7 trillion USD divided by 91000 means that an average, people in that group have 183516483.516 USD in liquid wealth. That's pretty rich if you ask me.

    How is it the most ridiculous notion ever? The massively uneven distribution of wealth is the cause of millions of deaths and untold levels of suffering.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't call it immoral, just selfish.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    extreme wealth isnt immoral, but how you obtain it could be...

    Who are you or anyone to take the piss out of someone for having a larger excess of money than other people? if they work harder than everyone else, why cant they have more money? if they worked to the bone, why cant they have extreme wealth? is this jealousy in disguise?

    you can pick flaws in how money was obtained e.g. using third world child labour etc, but you cant pick flaws in having a lot of money in general... these are two different things and there is nothing wrong with the latter. if i work to the bone, there shouldnt be anything wrong with having the money i earned or what i do with it. i could give it to my kids, i could eat it whatever....

    to summarise, morality here is to do with how such money was obtained, not whether someone holds a lot of it or not
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It seems a lot of people are attempting to answer this question without considering the most important aspect of it; how is the money earned?

    If I earn my money through trade by providing a good or service which people value via voluntary transactions then I absolutely deserve to keep all that I have earned. I have already contributed to society by providing those products; I have produced more than I am likely to be able to consume with the money I've earned.

    Conversely, if I do not earn my money honestly and instead steal from or defraud others, or curry favour with politicians block my competition with the law then I deserve little of the money I acquire - if I deserve any at all - and have done more harm than good to society. In such a case I should be prosecuted.

    So in summary; I do not think extreme wealth is inherently immoral - only the means by which it is acquired can be immoral.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Dejah Thoris)
    I think you're going overboard now and stretching my words to make ridiculous claims. Giving all your food away is illogical not to mention stupid, you can't help everyone but the key is working out how much you can afford to give out so that you can live within your means. There's nothing wrong with living a lavish lifestyle and you shouldn't feel guilty for having money when others don't but you also need to help the poor.


    The Jesus quote is open to interpretation rather than saying "oh there'll always be poor people so don't bother" I believe it's telling us to appreciate the small things we have which we often take for granted.
    No, I'm not. You were making the claim that rich people should feel guilty if they don't help the poor, when you yourself could afford to help more people and don't.

    I never said give away all your food. But you don't need chocolate, crisps, fizzy drinks, alcohol etc to survive. That money could save lives. If there's nothing wrong with having a lavish lifestyle, then you shouldn't judge the rich for it either, because you yourself are somewhat rich in comparison to many others, and yet you don't help as many as you could.

    As I said, it's from the musical - not open to interpretation, that's literally what he says.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you have worked hard, and put every effort and risk in order to earn the money then it's debatable, if you've won it of the lottery then you should donate for definitely. At the end of the day it all depends on how you feel.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Of course I can, as I said before the world is ****ed up because of the mega rich, not because of students drinking beer or buying a tee shirt.



    That's just liquid wealth by the way, so it doesn't even include the masses of money that the mega rich have tied up in things like property.
    You still don't get my point. You could not afford the life you live right now if poverty was eradicated. Your greed, my greed and everyone else on TSR's greed is helping keep poverty alive and well.

    EDIT: Did someone not like the harsh truth? If everyone suddenly was paid the amount they should be paid for their labour, you would not be able to buy the material goods you want. They'd be astonomically expensive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It gets complicated when you come down to specific people - some would argue that Bill Gates as a young man was mainly someone who stole other people's good ideas (notably the people at Xerox and then Apple) and made a great deal of money out of them through good business skills rather than invention - isn't it also arguable that the Microsoft stranglehold over operating systems then choked innovation for decades until smartphones and tablets made an appearance? Therefore, does Gates "deserve" his wealth more than, say, Paul McCartney, who at least honestly entertained many millions of people?
    Other way around more like.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JBMJBM)
    Should I read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead first?
    Both of these books are the literal actualisation of human evil in written form and also really, really bad.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    You still don't get my point. You could not afford the life you live right now if poverty was eradicated. Your greed, my greed and everyone else on TSR's greed is helping keep poverty alive and well.
    Our greed is not keeping anything alive and well. We don't have the wealth to change anything, as you can see from my graph all we would be doing is redistributing relatively minute levels of wealth and making practically no difference. All the worlds wealth would still be in the hands of very few mega rich people. If all the worlds wealth was in the hands of the middle classes you'd have a point, but it isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Life isn't fair. don't let reality be an obstacle.

    There are equal opportunities, but not equal outcomes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Well, morality is all subjective. For me, no - it isn't actively harming someone, so it isn't immoral.
    lol.. I think only sociopaths say that morals are subjective.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.