Rich People are Evil

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

...recent? o.0 What's recent about monarchies losing ground? Also what are you doing up this late?

[Steve]

Sure there is - because it's yours to do with as you please.

I suppose this is the philosophical cleave point. Although we should probably differentiate between legal and moral or ethical. Saying that it is unethical or immoral to maintain yourself with wealth you will never spend for personal need - even personal whimsy - much less productive purposes is not the same as saying your wealth should by law be confiscated above a certain level.

[Admiral X]

Pretty sure that's what Fuzzy means, though.

[SuccubusYuri]

Oooh, already it's assumptions time *rubs hands together*

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'm talking about morals, not legality. That's why I said "Evil" instead of "Criminal".


"It's yours to do with as you please" is technically true, but if what you please to do with it is sit on a pile of money you will never spend while working to make it harder for other people to get the bare necessities of life, while people are starving and dying of preventable illnesses and suffering in squalor all around you, then you are a wicked, cruel, and heartless person.

[Karha of Honor]

...recent? o.0 What's recent about monarchies losing ground? Also what are you doing up this late?

If you take the long view of history...

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

...recent? o.0 What's recent about monarchies losing ground? Also what are you doing up this late?

If you take the long view of history...

I guess? Usually people use "recent" to refer to the short view.

[FemtoCat]

but if what you please to do with it is sit on a pile of money you will never spend

Don't rich people keep most of their wealth in bonds, stocks etc? It doesnt sound like sitting on pile of money you will never spend, more like keeping your money in places where it will actually be able to do something productive.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Jeff Bezos could end homelessness by giving every homeless person $100k and it would take less than 1% of the money he owns. But he doesn't. Because he's evil and worthless.

[Darth Wedgius]

Jeff Bezos could end homelessness by giving every homeless person $100k and it would take less than 1% of the money he owns. But he doesn't. Because he's evil and worthless.

Your moral opinion aside, there are a few practical problems with that. Most homeless are temporarily homeless, meaning all those homeless would be met by another set of homeless. But he can just keep giving away money, right? Well, Mr. Bezos's net worth about $71 billion. Over the course of the year (October 2009 – September 2010), the 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report found that 1,593,150 individuals experienced homelessness. 1,593,150 people x $100,000 comes to 159,315,000,000, which is more than 1% of Mr. Bezos net worth, in the sense that $159 billion is more than 100% of $71 billion.

The number of chronically homeless people was about 123,000 in 2007, a more manageable figure. $100,000 x 123,000 would be $12,300,000,000, which is obviously more than 1% of $71 billion.

Moreover, it is not unknown for homeless people receiving large sums of money to end up back on the streets again. Poor life skills can contribute to homelessness, though other causes will do.

But ethically, have you considered the ramifications? 80% of homeless people might be men, so wouldn't giving $100,000 to each homeless person be sexist?