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 SpaceX, Jeff Bezos with Amazon, and many more. According to the principles of a perfect market, billionaires should not exist, for their existence demarcates an unequal society. However, we have arrived at a point where a single billionaire may make more money in a matter of seconds than the workers do in a year, all the while struggling to meet basic needs like housing and healthcare. We have reached an outrageous inequality crisis where money is concentrated in the hands of a vital few. Unfortunately, this is at the expense of debilitating hardship, precarity, and compromised well-being for many. There will always be a divide in our social classes if it is based on riches, but is it fair to live in a society where only one group of individuals of the same race and social status possess significant wealth, while others barely have enough to eat? Mathematically, it appears impossible for the average person to become a billionaire in today’s society. It would take 18,000 years for an average American to even reach a billion dollars when they only earn around $54,000 annually. Thus, many individuals currently argue that eliminating the presence of billionaires in society would be the right thing to do – but will it work? Should the government prohibit billionaires from continuing to eradicate poverty and further increasing wage disparities? 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 had increased by 845 billion dollars by September 2020, whereas millions of average Americans struggled with the economic consequences of the COVID-19 epidemic (Business Insider, Sardana, 2020). This is equivalent to the Dutch GDP – all in the hands of less than a thousand people. The House of Commons reports that the wealthiest 1% will own two-thirds of all global wealth by 2030, proving this to be a very pressing matter. Financial inequality has increased at an alarming rate over the last few decades. The spark to the match was lit during the Covid-19 epidemic in 2020, when the affluent grew richer, and the poor poorer, proving that the essential issue with wealth disparity is the inequality it creates.

Consistent with Oxfam’s statistics, the 26 wealthiest people have the same amount of money as the poorest half of humanity, amounting to 3.9 billion people. Nearly all of those individuals live on less than $5.50 daily. The issue is increasingly critical since it not only has disastrous effects on economic growth but undermines social stability as well. Moreover, it brings to light other societal topics such as racism, sexism, and xenophobia as racial minorities and other marginalised groups are more likely to suffer in poverty. So, why has wealth disparity widened? What has caused the recent rise in inequality?

Part 1 : Neoliberalism as a factor in the uneven distribution of wealth

The UN estimated that in 2021, 751 million people worldwide live in poverty. Furthermore, according to Oxfam (2022), 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 currently worse than the aftermath of COVID-19 and have been steadily developing even before the epidemic. Pre-epidemic, free market and liberal economists had been leveraging the law to favour themselves, like problems related to the minimum wage. The capitalist system inherently generates inequality and benefits the already affluent while exploiting labour. For instance, Amazon, responsible for Jeff Bezos’ acquired wealth, has been repeatedly discovered to have horrible working conditions, with several media platforms exposing the dehumanising atmosphere. In recent decades, neoliberal approaches to economic policies, 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, favours neoliberal economic market policies. Furthermore, ‘Trickle down‘ economics, promoted by Reagan, was only 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, while the poor continue to fall deeper into 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 alleviated with each billionaire’s wealth. Money is power, and the wealthiest individuals can aid in solving the world’s challenges. This was evident when the UN informed Elon Musk that 6 billion, or a mere 3% of his fortune, could be utilised to overcome world hunger. Eleven people worldwide die from starvation every minute, but Musk’s fortune is yet to be put towards fixing this crisis. Musk is one of many failing to help, as we now turn to Jeff Bezos who has only given less than 1% of his net worth to charity. The cornerstone 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 a billion times harder than anyone else. Evidently, the accumulation of extraordinary wealth is unfortunately achieved through exploitation, and as the rich flourish in their affluence further widening the wealth gap, millions continue to suffer daily. Ironically, those with the power to fix this are the ones who choose to keep them there.

Part 2 : Big Money in Politics

Quoting Emma Goldman, “Wealth means power : The power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade.” Thus, with great power comes great responsibility. However, this is not the mindset of many billionaires today. In 2022, American billionaires spent nearly $1 billion on the elections. Political contributions are often motivated by the goal to maximise their revenue even more, as elected officials are coerced to approve regulatory, tax and spending policies that please the big and wealthy (American for Tax Fairness, 2020). Later on, the billionaire class were found to be in support of radical anti-democratic agendas which backed Trump’s lies in the 2020 election that it was rigged while questioning the value of democracy by stating that freedom and democracy are believed to be no longer compatible (The Guardian, 2022). Millions were donated to uphold this idea that the 2020 election was won by Trump. Now, in 2023, Trump is currently charged with four counts of felony regarding the matter above (PBS, 2023). Where this initiative leads to is not clearly displayed as Aaron McKean said, “Wealthy special interests and individuals try to hide their influence in elections, including by funding politically active nonprofits, because they know that the messenger matters,” (CNBC, 2023). Limitations on campaign finance, transparency, and constructive enforcement of the rules of wealthy donors during elections are exactly what we need (Brennan Center for Justice, n.d).

Part 3 : A billionaire’s footprint

Wealth gave the idle rich new ways of living, perspectives, beliefs, and tastes (Jacobin, 2018). And in this case, billionaires still find ways to build their wealth by investing in pollution, causing a surge in carbon footprints across the globe. Oxfam (2022) reported that the richest 1% of humanity produces twice as much carbon emissions compared to the poorest 50% of the human population. Superemitters, which are the top 0.1% of the wealthiest Americans, account for 3,000 tons of carbon pollution each year coming from the finance, insurance and mining industries (CNN Business, 2023). On the other hand, only 1 out of 125 billionaires have investments in renewable energy (Liberation News, 2022). With a huge amount of money in hand, billionaires should, by right, take the lead in mitigating climate change, by making way for more responsible investments (Oxfam, 2022). Sustainable funds in fact have no financial trade-off in the performance of sustainable and traditional U.S equity funds; Instead, sustainable funds have already surpassed traditional funds (Morgan Stanley’s 2021 Institute of Sustainable Investing Report, 2021). Sustainable funding is something billionaires should look at to ensure their investments are both positively impacting not only their revenue but the environment too.

Part 4 : Should we eradicate the rich?

It would be impossible to draw clear conclusions about how the world would appear if billionaires were expunged. Although substantial data may be gathered via research, 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? Is there a way to make everyone satisfy? Many aspects must be considered in the determination of wealth distribution 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 Beatriz Barros, an environmental expert from Indiana University. Billionaires’ lives are very carbon-intensive, with transportation being the most destructive activity, including the extensive use of yachts, private aircraft, helicopters, and several automobiles. Billionaires often use remote planes which release the most CO₂, given their size. It is superfluous since a commercial aeroplane can fly at a fraction of the CO₂/km.

Eliminating billionaires would have a massive global impact considering that they 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. To put this in perspective, the population of France in 2021 was 67.5 million people, showcasing gargantuan emission levels, 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.

Part 5 : What can we do about this?

Taxation is one method of addressing this. More effectively, taxing these 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 can 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, especially in countries that deal with climate change. However, we have to keep in mind that the effectiveness of billionaire taxation relies on well-designed policies that prevent tax evasion and avoidance. Additionally, it’s essential to strike a balance between wealth redistribution and incentivising innovation and entrepreneurship, as excessive taxation could stifle economic growth.

Conclusion

In conclusion, whether billionaires should be eradicated is a complex and contentious issue. While some argue that extreme wealth concentration perpetuates inequality and hinders societal progress, others contend that the success of billionaires can drive economic growth and innovation. Addressing wealth disparity requires a multifaceted approach, focusing on fair taxation, social safety nets, and ethical business practices. By striving for a more equitable society, we can better ensure that prosperity is shared and sustainable for all, irrespective of their wealth.

References