How can there be billionaires while good people are dying?

To answer the question in the title, the vast majority of billionaires are billionaires by virtue of owning a large number of shares in a company that is highly valued. Their wealth is effectively speculative, not "money in the bank".

Imagine I were to write a piece of software that provides some much needed service which, for the time being, I provide for free. If I were to have an IPO it may be that the 50% share of the company being offered is bought for £1 billion valuing the company at £2 billion and so my 50% share also at £1 billion. I am, on paper, a billionaire, but that's not money that I have available to buy yachts or mansions or anything. In fact I have very little money, given that I don't have an income.

Am I obligated to sell my shares and give that money to others in need? But then what about the person who buys those shares? Is he then obligated to sell the shares he's just bought and give that money to others in need? It'll be a never-ending cycle of buying and selling shares and redistributing money. And in such a situation nobody would buy my shares in the first place – given that they'd just have to sell them and give away the money – in which case I have no way to sell my shares and so I'm forever a billionaire-on-paper with no means to convert that into cash that can then be redistributed to those in need.

So at least in this simple scenario, the very notion of redistributing the wealth of billionaires is nonsensical.

The only things I think are feasible are taxes on income, capital gains, sale of goods etc., but that's never going to stop there being billionaires.

Reply to Michael You’ve got a point. However, what I really mean is this: There certainly are many people who have the resources (time, money, energy, asf.) to do useful things but rather waste them on useless or harmful stuff. This should not be the case. I’m not saying that imaginary billionaires of the kind you’ve described should have their imaginary wealth redistributed – after all, imaginary wealth isn’t of much use. I’m saying that there are people who have tremendous amounts of real (soothfast) wealth who choose to do useless stuff with their wealth, and I’m saying that this uselessly used wealth should be redistributed. Coming to think of it, I was wrong to suppose that there shouldn’t be any billionaires while people are suffering, even when talking about real billionaires. For instance, a certain billionaire comes to mind who invests his money into something useful, namely space-travel – so useful that in the long run, for the sake of humanity, it is at least as good an investment as helping individuals in need. That money should certainly not be redistributed. But if, for instance, a film-maker makes huge money through a porn movie or a movie that celebrates evil deeds (like murder, rape, asf.), then that money should be taken away and put into something more brookful (useful) – perhaps even given to said space-faring billionaire! What I propose in this example is to effectively hinder the buyers of the porn movie from wasting their money on porn; the film should never be made, and its would-have-been-buyers should invest their money into spaceflight instead of porn. Of course, porn was just used as an example, and not a very major one at that. I call for the forbidding of wasting wealth and resources on useless or harmful stuff and for ordering its use to do helpful things and reach good goals.

Regarding your thought-experiment: It’s praiseworthy that you offer your software for free, and by doing so, you render a service the world. Even if you later choose to charge money for it, that’s okay as long as you don’t waste that money, e.g. if you invest it in your children’s education. However, if you would afford to waste it, you could also afford to spend it on cancer research, so you shouldn’t be allowed to do the former instead of the latter.

Reply to Tristan L Putting it simple, different people have different values. For example you care deeply and Ulyana and despise someone having a yacht. While someone else cares deeply about his yacht and despises people like Ulyana.
And, of course, each side is perfectly assured of their self-righteousness.

Quoting Tristan L

But if, for instance, a film-maker makes huge money through a porn movie or a movie that celebrates evil deeds (like murder, rape, asf.), then that money should be taken away and put into something more brookful (useful) – perhaps even given to said space-faring billionaire! What I propose in this example is to effectively hinder the buyers of the porn movie from wasting their money on porn; the film should never be made, and its would-have-been-buyers should invest their money into spaceflight instead of porn.

Proponents of the free market would argue that having a single entity that determines what is "good" or "bad" for other people would be way more dangerous than having every person spend his own money as he pleases. As you have already see the government waging the war on poverty and losing, waging a war on drugs and also losing.

Maybe it's just that the super rich aren't well-informed! Also, I hear gettin' rich is tough on your soul - you lose something along the way...to untold riches, oui mo ami?

Reply to Tristan L
I would add to your questions with others such as:
Why does the Vatican not help Ulyana and her like? They are one of or perhaps even thee richest organisation in the world and they profess to care about people. Could they not sell one of their useless paintings to help her and her like?

Why don't the churches, chapels, cathedrals, mosques, temples not open their doors every night to the homeless? Many theist groups do a great deal to help the poor and probably do more that many secular authorities do but they all need to do so much more. Many religious and theosophist organisations (such as Scientology) are very rich.
The word hypocrites is a fair accusation I think.

If you are a billionaire in assets of any kind then YOU ARE an abomination imo. Anyone ever saw a Camel trying to get through the eye of a needle? I am sure a billionaire like Elon Musk could make that happen. Atomise the Camel, pass it through, reconstitute the camel. It's probably one of the pet projects on his 'to do' list, so he can ascend to godhood in a Tesla, placed in the nosecone of his space rocket!

Quoting Tristan L

I call upon all high-minded folks to pressure their governments to confiscate the yachts, the money made from the porn movies, the money of the speculators, and all other resources invested in somethinig harmful or useless, and put that money to something useful instead like saving good people's lives or making this wonderful planet of ours a better place for our descendents.

Or we could insist that all medical care is free from cradle to grave for everyone in every country.

I tend to think of billionaires, and persons of great wealth, as equivalent to gluttons or hoarders in circumstances where food and resources are unavailable to many others. They have no need of their wealth and property, which serve only their own pleasures. Like gluttons and hoarders, they evoke a kind of disgust or loathing; but gluttons and hoarders often are victims of compulsions, and so may be pitied and assisted.

There shouldn't be billionaires, but they're allowed to exist in the current system.

Reply to Ciceronianus :smirk:

Quoting Ciceronianus

Like gluttons and hoarders, they evoke a kind of disgust or loathing; but gluttons and hoarders often are victims of compulsions, and so may be pitied and assisted.

I'd gladly assist any billionaire, if it would help to release them from that great burden of having an endless supply of money.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I'd gladly assist any billionaire, if it would help to release them from that great burden of having an endless supply of money.

:grin: Forgive us mon ami for giving you this enormous responsibility, for assigning this disgusting task, to you but you are ... the chosen one!