Billionaires

By MADELINE FITZGIBBON ‘21

“Billionaires should not exist”. Bernie Sanders’ inflammatory sparked debate amongst people across the country, but the discussion that prompted this tweet goes far deeper than this one statement. This short sentence prompts questions regarding whether billionaires can be ethical and how much money is too much, while also provoking thought about government control of money. At Milton, this question becomes extremely relevant as we go through our days in this privileged community.

Should billionaires exist? My automatic response would be no. No one needs that much money, and no one can spend that amount of money on truly worthwhile things. Even someone with, say, ten million dollars can be extremely comfortable and have money left over. With a billion dollars, I would say you should just donate it. Some people believe homelessness or world hunger could be solved with the money that people such as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have. In addition, many articles have been printed about billionaires avoiding paying taxes or obtaining financial aid. According to an article in Money from May 2018, every ten seconds, Jeff Bezos makes about $28,000, the median yearly salary for an Amazon worker, yet according to a CNN article from June 2019, Amazon paid a “less-than-zero tax rate”. Despite being named the richest man in the world, Bezos paid less in taxes than his underpaid workers. These statistics prompt thoughts about why Bezos deserves this money over his workers and if one type of labor is more valuable than another. Even many billionaires who “came from nothing” do little work after becoming wealthy whilst their workers struggle to provide for themselves or their families. 

However, if billionaires do not deserve this money, who does? According to a New York Times article from December 2012, one government official believes the cost of eradicating homelessness would be about $20 billion annually; although no one person could singlehandedly cure homelessness, if the extremely wealthy were taxed more, they could cover this cost each year. Unfortunately, this number only raises another problem: how much control should the government have?

I’ve heard many people express outrage that wealthy people do not pay taxes and thus hoard their money instead of helping others. Many wealthy people donate large amounts of money – but amounts that only represent a tiny fraction of their wealth – an act that many view as performative and done for a tax write off. However, some billionaires go beyond the tax write-off amount in order to help solve genuine problems. Bill Gates created his own foundation, something that allows him a tax write-off; therefore, according to numbers, he would not pay the “fair” amount of taxes despite contributing to causes about which he cared. Instead of contributing to the government and thus losing control of the causes for which his money is used, Gates has the power to choose, at least for a part of his taxable income. With many people feeling frustrated with the government’s actions, a charitable write-off becomes a perfect strategy to contribute to worthwhile causes rather than losing control over where tax dollars are spent. Therefore, while Sanders believes that billionaires should be taxed at higher rates, I believe that at any level beyond their current tax bracket, they should be required to donate a certain percentage of income, but they need not pay in taxes. 

Although revolutionary change cannot come immediately, I do agree with Sanders’ statement that billionaires should not exist; that large amount of wealth seems unethical when people live on the streets and starve every day. However, rather than pouring billionaires money into the government, where it can be used to fulfill political ideals, I believe that billionaires – along with non-billionaires – should have more control over where their money goes. No one always has all of their political ideals met, so a system that gives some at least a little more control over where tax money goes would fulfill everyone’s needs. 

At Milton, although most families are not billionaire families, we still need to consider our existing in an exclusive, privileged community. If having a billion dollars is not ethical because others are suffering from lack of money, then how is taking part in a community that essentially declares people in or out by their financial status? And how can our families ensure that we are doing “enough” to help our communities outside of school? No easy answer exists, but working to create a system where extreme wealth inequality can no longer exist and the people have more of a say over where their money is spent will go a long way towards solving issues of inequality and money as a divisor both at Milton and in the world.