11 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

Why does no one deserve a billion dollars? Why is it considered unacceptable for someone to have built a company worth over one billion dollars?

I agree, but only if the Bill uses anything over to help common people. Not private jeys, yachts, houses in every country, stable of teen concubines.

10 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

The thing that makes humans different is the capacity to increase their intelligence to help others, and themselves. The problem with free will is that some take that into greed, and when it gets to the millionaire status, they want the billionaire position. When it's there, it has power, which is why many keep working. Trump was a billionaire already, so he wanted to be god, and people helped him get there.

It's true about the world and it's God given beauty and structures. Insects do amazing things, one of which is keeping us alive by pollination. Humans can and do help others all the time. The problem lies where some humans only agenda is to become richer by destroying our planet an acre at a time.

People are the highest form of life on the planet, and if more helped and less destroyed, mainly from narcissism and a sociopathic mind, we would all be better off. It all starts in the home. Hatred, fear, misogyny, abuse, neglect, love, care, empathy, control, kindness, sympathy, and indifference.

Some of the most disturbed minds on earth are leaders, and the same that follow them, and some of these are elected into power, while others force their way in by genocide.

People have come a long way with inventions to make our lives easier, and there is nothing wrong with advancement, as long as it isn't taking advantage of others.

Hm, evolution. I'm not so sure we're at the top of the heap. There are many other living beings, such as trees, which provide for many species and even suffer being cut down, pretty close to the image of Christ. It's not only humans who can become enlightened, some beings are born that way.

Think about it. Do we really need Teslas, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Starlink satellites polluting the night sky? How do they make our lives more contented, more mraningful?

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Her and Taylor Swift!

Speaking of savvy, self-made billionaire...

15 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Hm, evolution. I'm not so sure we're at the top of the heap. There are many other living beings, such as trees, which provide for many species and even suffer being cut down, pretty close to the image of Christ. It's not only humans who can become enlightened, some beings are born that way.

Think about it. Do we really need Teslas, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Starlink satellites polluting the night sky? How do they make our lives more contented, more mraningful?

I saw the beginni9ng of the end when I saw all the trees being cut down in the Amazon while I was still in school, that this would someday affact life on earth. We are at the top of the heap, but some act like they're more worthy of others.

8 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Yeah, yeah! Keep on living in that fantasy.

Got it. Reality is from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Capitalism is just a fantasy, socialism is real

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Got it. Reality is from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Capitalism is just a fantasy, socialism is real

You think way too binary, Yag. From your recent comments, left vs right, gay vs straight, Jews vs hatred, hatred vs Muslims, socialists vs capitalists. There really doesn't need to be any versus.

1 minute ago, unblocktheplanet said:

There really doesn't need to be any versus

Got it. No sense in favouring good vs evil

8 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

And some still think this all happened by chance without a creator.

Yes. I'm one of those who know such things do not need a creator. All that is required is mutation, which is a natural phenomenon of the physical world, and that adaptation, or as Darwin called in, selecting in, allows something to survive and propagate.

Any of the fantasy deities man created seem to be both woefully inefficient as well as possessing the worst qualities of humans.

Such a deity or deities, apparently bored out of their minds from minus eternity until -13.8 billion years ago, supposedly manufactured 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies, each with 500 billion to 1 trillion stars, most of which have planets, just so that on one planet orbiting one star in one galaxy life could evolve so that eventually there would be sentient beings who would tell said deity or deities just how great it was and thank it or them for everything from a cheeseburger to a local team's basketball victory.

Now if birds were born with a Garmin GPS, maybe I could see the chance of a creator, but adaptation is not proof of anything. The religious will try to argue that giraffes were "given" long necks to reach the highest leaves, whereas rational people will say giraffes with long necks survived and propagated, passing their genes for long necks in to their offspring.

But if belief gives you comfort, have at it.

On 6/1/2026 at 10:52 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

I don't believe that, either. I think it's so bred into their DNA that they can't stop themselves from working. It doesn't take that long for them to no longer need more money.

That's why I think capitalist money should be capped. Nobody deserves a billion dollars. Let's be generous and cap them at $500 million.

In fact, their money will just keep making money exponentially. And we skim it off for good works.

Govt takes all the rest. And they'll still keep on wortking, benefiting society or destroying the planet.

Well, I think $100 USD per day is more than enough to live comfortably in Thailand. So by that logic, anything you earn above an average of $100 per day should be taken by the Thai government and redistributed to people who have less. After all why should anyone be allowed to keep more than what someone else considers "enough"....right?

The problem with wealth caps is that "too much" is completely subjective. To someone struggling to get by a millionaire has too much. To someone in a poorer country the average American has too much. Once you accept the principle that the government can take what you've legally earned simply because someone else thinks you have enough there's no clear place to stop.

I don't care how much money someone else has. If they earned it legally and voluntarily through providing value, it's theirs. The focus should be on creating opportunities for people to succeed and not punishing success because it exceeds an arbitrary limit.

We're already hearing politicians float ideas like wealth taxes, equity mandates and other forms of redistribution. History shows that when governments gain the power to decide who has "too much," that threshold tends to move lower and lower over time.

22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

There's nothing unacceptable about being rich but as Billy Eilish so wisely said recently being a billionaire is a fault it's not a quality. It means you're not giving much away and you're hoarding for yourself.

With wealth comes a huge responsibility to society and the ability to aid people and humanity in countless ways. Not doing so once you have great wealth is beyond an abomination. I could name names but all of you know who the biggest cheapskates are amongst the billionaire class. Hint. Our dear leader, for one.

A couple of things.

First, Billie Eilish isn't a billionaire. She's a multimillionaire worth tens of millions of dollars. If having more wealth than you need creates a moral obligation to give it away, at what point does that obligation begin? Does it only apply to people who are richer than her?

Second, if we're going to judge people by how much they give back, shouldn't we apply the same standard consistently? Billie lives in Los Angeles on land that was historically inhabited by Native American tribes. Has she donated a significant portion of her own wealth to those communities? If not, why not? If wealthy people have a moral obligation to redistribute their wealth, shouldn't that standard apply to multimillionaires as well as billionaires?

And I'm not sure where the idea that billionaires are all "cheapskates" comes from. Many billionaires have donated more money to charity than most people will earn in several lifetimes. You can certainly argue that they should donate more, but it's difficult to call someone a cheapskate after they've given away hundreds of millions—or even billions—of dollars.

Finally, what does Trump have to do with the original point? We were discussing whether wealth itself is immoral or whether people should be allowed to keep money they've legally earned. Bringing your dislike of Trump into almost every conversation doesn't address arguments, it just changes the subject!!

13 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Well we see that very differently and I'm not necessarily saying I'm right and you're wrong but I do believe that great wealth carries a huge level of responsibility towards society. One can be super self involved and completely forget about humanity, such as someone like our dear leader, but that doesn't excuse the self-absorption and selfishness for a nanosecond. It is a true indication of a dark heart and contempt for those that are considerably less fortunate. But we've already seen that with the heartless cuts to the usaid program.

Cuts to USAID?

The United States is already running massive deficits, which means we are borrowing money to spend money.

So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether we should be sending billions overseas while we still have serious problems at home.

That does not mean Americans should have no compassion for people in other countries. But compassion also requires priorities.

If a family is drowning in debt they don't keep borrowing money to help everyone else before taking care of their own household.

We have homelessness, veterans struggling, struggling families, failing schools, drug addiction, crime and a national debt that keeps growing.

So why is it “heartless” to question foreign aid spending, but not heartless to ignore the people here who are also suffering in the USA?

You can support helping others and still believe America has a responsibility to take care of its own citizens first!

1 hour ago, ericthai said:

We're already hearing politicians float ideas like wealth taxes, equity mandates and other forms of redistribution. History shows that when governments gain the power to decide who has "too much," that threshold tends to move lower and lower over time.

The income tax was introduced in 1913 with the promise to tax only the wealthy. However, if a wealth tax is enacted, it will gradually affect the middle class as well. The government has grown too large and has committed to providing too many future benefits. The political class will never admit this, and they are now searching for spare change under the couch. One has to feel sorry for younger generations, as the current political class is leaving behind a significant financial mess.

6 hours ago, Wingate said:

Yes. I'm one of those who know such things do not need a creator. All that is required is mutation, which is a natural phenomenon of the physical world, and that adaptation, or as Darwin called in, selecting in, allows something to survive and propagate.

Any of the fantasy deities man created seem to be both woefully inefficient as well as possessing the worst qualities of humans.

Such a deity or deities, apparently bored out of their minds from minus eternity until -13.8 billion years ago, supposedly manufactured 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies, each with 500 billion to 1 trillion stars, most of which have planets, just so that on one planet orbiting one star in one galaxy life could evolve so that eventually there would be sentient beings who would tell said deity or deities just how great it was and thank it or them for everything from a cheeseburger to a local team's basketball victory.

Now if birds were born with a Garmin GPS, maybe I could see the chance of a creator, but adaptation is not proof of anything. The religious will try to argue that giraffes were "given" long necks to reach the highest leaves, whereas rational people will say giraffes with long necks survived and propagated, passing their genes for long necks in to their offspring.

But if belief gives you comfort, have at it.

Actually it's what you think, not what you know. There are a few reasons why people turn against God, mostly from how their parents raised them or that they suffered a loss of some kind and blamed God for it.

Mutation doesn't happen when there isn't anything to mutate. There was no physical world before creation.

About space, and how large it is, are just guesses. That they have planets around those star guesses, are more guesses. That there can possibly be life on other planets is possible, but still guesses.

Nothing to do with being religious, as all religions are man made, but God isn't. If you want to believe a certain way, and it gives you comfort, have at it, but someday you will meet God, and if you're not prepared.

Edited June 2Jun 2 by fredwiggy

13 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Got it. Reality is from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Capitalism is just a fantasy, socialism is real

No, you got it very wrong there Yagoda! That´s exactly why you find it so hard understanding simple things that over 60% of the US population already got.

I will break it down for you: Capitalism is real, Socialism is real and Reality is also real and only has one version. That´s why it´s called reality. It doesn´t exist one reality for you, one for me and another for other people. Reality is a constant you find in present time.

As well as everything is real, it´s also nothing wrong with any of the factors. What´s wrong is that you and too many people still believe there are different realities.

31 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

No, you got it very wrong there Yagoda! That´s exactly why you find it so hard understanding simple things that over 60% of the US population already got.

I will break it down for you: Capitalism is real, Socialism is real and Reality is also real and only has one version. That´s why it´s called reality. It doesn´t exist one reality for you, one for me and another for other people. Reality is a constant you find in present time.

As well as everything is real, it´s also nothing wrong with any of the factors. What´s wrong is that you and too many people still believe there are different realities.

There is the reality when people groan under the jackboot of Socialism and the my reality of living in a country where freedom rings. I like my reality.

1 hour ago, Gottfrid said:

What´s wrong is that you and too many people still believe there are different realities.

"Can two people have different realities?

No two people have identical realities, and this is what makes life interesting and unique. We all see the world through our own personal lens, shaped by our individual worldviews, beliefs, values, and experiences. This means that each of us experiences reality in a different way."

A fish and a human are both trapped under water. The reality for the fish is that it is breathing just fine and will survive. What is the reality for the human?

2 minutes ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

"Can two people have different realities?

No two people have identical realities, and this is what makes life interesting and unique. We all see the world through our own personal lens, shaped by our individual worldviews, beliefs, values, and experiences. This means that each of us experiences reality in a different way."

A fish and a human are both trapped under water. The reality for the fish is that it is breathing just fine and will survive. What is the reality for the human?

Yes, you can experience reality in different ways. That´s correct. However, it was not what I was talking about, and definitely not a human and a fish experience under water. A ballroom is being built for over 1bn usd. Some thinks that´s well invested taxpayer money, other don´t. What´s the reality? Does the reality tell you, there are many other things that could be higher on top of the list to do. Maybe reality tells you that it would be enough with 300 millions, and 700 could go to other things.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by Gottfrid

1 minute ago, Gottfrid said:

Yes, you can experience reality in different ways. That´s correct. However, it was not what I was talking about. A ballroom is being built for over 1bn usd. Some thinks that´s well invested taxpayer money, other don´t. What´s the reality? Does the reality tell you, there are many other things that could be higher on top of the list to do. Maybe reality tells you that it would be enough with 300 millions, and 700 could go to other things.

What you describe is not reality. It is opinion.

2 hours ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

What you describe is not reality. It is opinion.

No, it´s a reality, that money could be better spent.

8 hours ago, ericthai said:

First, Billie Eilish isn't a billionaire. She's a multimillionaire worth tens of millions of dollars. If having more wealth than you need creates a moral obligation to give it away, at what point does that obligation begin? Does it only apply to people who are richer than her?

Her net worth is $50 million, so close enough IMHO.

And she did state the rich should share.

45 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

No, it´s a reality, that money could be better spent.

It's your opinion that the money could be spent better. I happen to agree. But others are of the opinion it could not be spent better. No matter how strongly you feel about your opinions, they are still just opinions.

9 hours ago, ericthai said:

Well, I think $100 USD per day is more than enough to live comfortably in Thailand. So by that logic, anything you earn above an average of $100 per day should be taken by the Thai government and redistributed to people who have less. After all why should anyone be allowed to keep more than what someone else considers "enough"....right?

The problem with wealth caps is that "too much" is completely subjective. To someone struggling to get by a millionaire has too much. To someone in a poorer country the average American has too much. Once you accept the principle that the government can take what you've legally earned simply because someone else thinks you have enough there's no clear place to stop.

I don't care how much money someone else has. If they earned it legally and voluntarily through providing value, it's theirs. The focus should be on creating opportunities for people to succeed and not punishing success because it exceeds an arbitrary limit.

We're already hearing politicians float ideas like wealth taxes, equity mandates and other forms of redistribution. History shows that when governments gain the power to decide who has "too much," that threshold tends to move lower and lower over time.

I do see your point, perhaps wealth caps are not the solution. How about karma points? The super-rich having to prove a certain percentage of their fortunes are going to good works?

Then we run into the problem of who decides what percentage and what good works count.

It just burns me to see all the Bills indulging their expensive dreams without giving back.

18 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Got it. No sense in favouring good vs evil

That, too. But you don't seem to have any grey areas.

5 hours ago, Yagoda said:

There is the reality when people groan under the jackboot of Socialism and the my reality of living in a country where freedom rings. I like my reality.

I kept looking for that country and, finally, exhausted, I settled for Thailand.

9 hours ago, ericthai said:

Cuts to USAID?

The United States is already running massive deficits, which means we are borrowing money to spend money.

So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether we should be sending billions overseas while we still have serious problems at home.

That does not mean Americans should have no compassion for people in other countries. But compassion also requires priorities.

If a family is drowning in debt they don't keep borrowing money to help everyone else before taking care of their own household.

We have homelessness, veterans struggling, struggling families, failing schools, drug addiction, crime and a national debt that keeps growing.

So why is it “heartless” to question foreign aid spending, but not heartless to ignore the people here who are also suffering in the USA?

You can support helping others and still believe America has a responsibility to take care of its own citizens first!

You didn't mention the trillion the US is spending on its war machine. We used to donate rice and medicine and now we just eliminate the people who need it.

The military is America's #1 useless spend.

On 6/2/2026 at 4:42 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

I agree, but only if the Bill uses anything over to help common people. Not private jeys, yachts, houses in every country, stable of teen concubines.

What happens when someone buys a yacht, a house, or a private jet? Who builds these items? Are they built by people? Who crews the yachts and flies the jets?

A lively discussion, Always welcome.

But we can boil it down to 1 essential question: Why do certain individuals have billions, whyle 2 billion people still live on less than 2 Dollars per day?

Something must have gone wrong.

Was it "evolution" or "the financial system" or "God" that approved such a constellation?

1 hour ago, swissie said:

A lively discussion, Always welcome.

But we can boil it down to 1 essential question: Why do certain individuals have billions, whyle 2 billion people still live on less than 2 Dollars per day?

Something must have gone wrong.

Was it "evolution" or "the financial system" or "God" that approved such a constellation?

Why do some individuals have billions? In the USA, many billionaires achieve this by founding companies that grow very large. This generates millions of jobs along the way. Consider Apple, Microsoft, and others.

https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/billionaires-kylie-jenner-united-states-china-worlds-richest-people.html

Why do billions live on just two dollars a day? Consider where they live. Extreme poverty is decreasing over time.

11 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

The military is America's #1 useless spend.

This is a false statement.