What Would Happen if We Banned Billionaires ?
“I can’t help the poor if I’m one of them.
So I got rich and gave back.
To me, that’s the win, win.”
-Jay Z.
Rockefeller was the first billionaire ever documented, owing to his ownership of Standard Oil. Over the last several decades, numerous people have followed in his footsteps, achieving fortune that no one could have predicted, such as Elon Musk with Tesla and Space X, Jeff Bezos with Amazon, and many more. In principle, we are taught that a billionaire should not exist in a perfect market since it would result in an unequal society. We have arrived at a point where a single billionaire may gain more money in seconds than their workforce can in a year while they struggle to satisfy fundamental requirements such as rent and medicine. We have reached an outrageous inequality crisis in which money is concentrated in the hands of a vital few at the expense of debilitating hardship, precarity, and compromised well-being for the many. There will always be a split in our social classes if it is based on riches, but is it fair to live in a community when one group of people, mainly of the same race and power, has a lot of money and another group of people barely has enough to eat? By mathematics, it appears impossible for the typical person to become a billionaire in today’s society. The regular American household income is roughly $54,000 annually; reaching a billion dollars would take 18,000 years. So, many individuals presently argue that eliminating their presence in society is the right thing to do, but will it work? Should the government prohibit billionaires from contributing to eradicating poverty, decreasing wage disparities, and closing the wealth gap in society? So, let’s dig a little deeper!
The fundamental problem with having billionaires in today’s society is wealth disparity. This is an issue that is more relevant now than ever before. According to statistics collected, the wealth of American billionaires increased by 845 billion dollars by September 2020 as millions of Americans struggled with the economic consequences of the COVID-19 epidemic (Business Insider, Sardana, 2020). In context, it is equivalent to the Dutch GDP — all in the hands of less than a thousand people. This is concerning; according to House of Commons figures, the wealthiest 1% will own two-thirds of all global wealth by 2030. The societal difference will no longer be a bombshell that separates all communities worldwide. Financial inequality has increased at an alarming rate over the last few decades. The spark to the match arrived on the eve of the Covid-19 epidemic in 2020 when the affluent grew their riches, and the poor got poorer. The essential issue with the wealth disparity is the inequality it creates.
According to Oxfam, the 26 wealthiest people have the same amount of money as the poorest half of humanity, 3.9 billion. Almost all those 3.9 billion people live on less than $5.50 daily. The issue is increasingly concerning since it has disastrous effects on economic growth and undermines social stability. It brings to light and empathises extra societal topics such as racism, sexism, and xenophobia since racial minorities and other marginalised groups are more likely to suffer in poverty than the socially wealthy. So, why has the wealth disparity widened? What caused the increase in inequality?
Neoliberalism as a Factor of the Uneven Distribution of Wealth
According to Oxfam, the Covid-19 epidemic increased millionaires’ riches by more than the previous 14 years combined, the most phenomenal yearly gain since records started. The wealth of the world’s top 10 men more than doubled, while the earnings of the bottom 99% fell. However, the escalating repercussions of inequality are worse than Covid-19 and have been steadily developing before the epidemic. Before the epidemic, free market and liberal economists had been leveraging the enforcement of the law, like problems related to the minimum wage that favors them. The capitalist market generates inequality and benefits the already affluent; the root cause of the wealth gap is underpaid, mistreated labor. Amazon, for example, responsible for Jeff Bezos’ acquired wealth, has been repeatedly discovered to have horrible working conditions, with several media stories exposing the dehumanizing atmosphere.
Neoliberal approaches to economic policies in recent decades, primarily defined by tax cuts, the declining influence of unions, and welfare cuts, have driven inequality acceleration. Policies like these are reflected in countries worldwide. The US, in particular, favors neoliberal economic market policies. ‘Trickle down’ economics, promoted by Reagan, was an excuse to benefit the already affluent. Wealth hasn’t ‘trickled down’ to the lower classes as liberalism suggested it would. Instead, the rich are becoming more prosperous, and the poor are becoming poorer. The UN estimated that in 2021, 751 million people worldwide live in poverty.
Conversely, the wealthiest 0.0001% sit comfortably on their riches, which grew by 14% between 2019–2021. The most immoral part of it? The majority of that money is going nowhere. It’s not being invested back into the economy or offered to charity organisations; it’s solely a show of the mass production of capital. Climate change, poverty, homelessness; all these problems can be helped with billionaires’ wealth. Money is power, and the wealthiest individuals can aid in solutions to the world’s challenges. The UN informed Elon Musk that 6 billion — 3% of his fortune — could be utilised to overcome world hunger: 11 people worldwide die from starvation every minute, but his future has yet to be put towards fixing this crisis. Musk is one of many failing to help. However, Jeff Bezos has given less than 1% of his net worth to charity. The fundamental truth of the wealth gap is that such extreme levels of inequality today are unethical and immoral. There is no justifiable cause for anyone to have a billion dollars — no one can work billion times harder than anyone else. The accumulation of extraordinary wealth is achieved through exploitation, and as the rich become more prosperous and the wealth gap widens, millions continue to suffer daily. Ironically, those with the power to fix this are the ones that choose to keep them there.
Should we eradicate the rich?
It would be impossible to draw clear conclusions about how the world would appear if billionaires were abolished. Although data may be gathered via study, there is always the risk of error. The market’s volatility makes it difficult to forecast whether the government should take this step in policy-making to make the globe more equitable. But how can one define a just world? Will there be no disparity between people’s earnings and those making the same money to build an economy where everyone may be satisfied? Many aspects must be considered when determining how wealth is distributed and how economic systems operate.
In reality, having no millionaires is better for the environment. “Everything about billionaires is harmful to the environment,” according to an environmental expert from Indiana University. Billionaires’ lives are very carbon-intensive, with transportation being the most destructive activity, with extensive use of yachts, private aircraft, helicopters, and several automobiles. Remote planes are the ones that release the most CO2 concerning their size. It is superfluous since a commercial aeroplane can fly at a fraction of the CO2/km.
Eliminating millionaires would have a massive global impact. Billionaires wield enormous power over economies and markets. According to Oxfam’s climate justice director, 125 millionaires are responsible for the same amount of CO2 emissions as the entire country of France. The population of France in 2021 was 67.5 million people, which is great given the ratios of both parties.
Rising global temperatures and climate change are closely related to greenhouse gas emissions. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and other artificial gases trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. In dry places, this disturbs weather patterns and increases the frequency of extreme weather events, droughts, and famines. These gases are primarily released when fossil fuels are burned to create electricity or power motor vehicles. Still, they are also released by the cattle, fertiliser, building, fashion, and technology sectors. According to the findings, eliminating the CO2 emissions of 2668 billionaires would be far more important than stopping the CO2 emissions of 2668 ordinary people.
Taxation is one method of addressing this. More effectively, taxing billionaires’ money reduces the accumulation of wealth that permits billionaires to purchase many private aircraft and 500-foot boats. Furthermore, it would create revenue that governments might use to support environmentally beneficial measures such as improving public transit systems. Wealth taxes on billionaires and their investments in polluting sectors would generate enormous funds to assist the poorest people and countries deal with climate change.
In conclusion, whether billionaires should be abolished is a complex and contentious issue. While some argue that extreme wealth promotes inequality and impedes social advancement, others contend that the that billionaires’ success can spur economic growth and innovation. A multidimensional strategy concentrating on equitable taxation, social safety nets, and moral business conduct is necessary to address wealth disparities. We can better ensure that prosperity is shared and sustainable for all, regardless of their wealth, by working towards a more egalitarian society.
[Written by: Haris Ikhwan. Edited by: Teoh Jin]
