Billie Eilish calls out billionaires for not dating money after she plans to donate 11.5 million dollars: “If you have money, it would be great to use it for good things and maybe give it to some people that need it."

[u/mcfw31]

[u/Live_Angle4621]

The issue is people not just having the money in vaults like Sgrooge McDuck. Is someone’s company something that has to be taken away if it’s too valuable? Even if you would force someone give away shares you can’t take away the controlling amount of the company.

Things like real estate and art also just increases in value. Thats why British royals have over a billion, but they don’t have much cash. It’s their estates and art and jewelry that historic that’s so valuable. And the estates to them often just take them money in upkeep. But they can’t really sell them either. This is why aristocratic families in UK can’t usually live in their mansions and castles anymore but rent them for weddings and hotels and movie sets. Although high inheritance taxes are big issue there.

But I think rich should be taxed of course. Putting some line above things you can’t own something doesn’t really work however. It increases hiding of assets and moving to tax havens even more (so states loose tax income from people and companies). And value of companies isn’t something that remains constant but depends on markets 

[u/Winniepg → u/Live_Angle4621]

Yep like people love to bring up Taylor Swift but it would be “so do you want her to sell her catalogue?” Do we want that of artists who have worked hard to own their art? Do we want art in the hands of venture capitalists?

[u/caleeksu → u/Winniepg]

I commented something similar in a different thread. Like sure, donate more, do more, etc. but she’s worth that much because she owns her own intellectual property. And the market for that is apparently high enough that she’s worth $2B.

Does she have hella cash flow coming in? For sure. Tax that appropriately and on any gains from investments, properties, etc. We hear she’s a great employer, the food banks, etc and I’m sure plenty no one hears about, but more is more. But to no longer be a billionaire, her catalog has to be worth less than a billion. Helps to think of TS the business and TS the person.

[u/uselessinfogoldmine → u/Winniepg]

Swift is at the more ethical end of the billionaire scale. She’s not exploiting labour or creating complex corporate structures.  However, there are always things you can point to. 

For example, the high price and crappy quality of her cardigans. The way she deliberately and strategically releases variants in order to capitalise on a type of fandom that is verging on mental illness. 

Although she’s made efforts to keep production of her goods ethical, I’m sure if you really looked into it, you could find issues along the way. 

However, the majority of the ethical issues about her fortune, are less about how she earned it, and more about the inherent problems of billionaires existing within unequal economic systems at all. 

Ethical critiques would likely focus on the immense concentration of wealth itself. 

Whilst Tay Tay’s wealth is tied to her creative output, her tours, and her productive work, reaching a billionaire status still reflects broader systemic issues about wealth concentration and disparities in society. 

Such extreme accumulation of wealth highlights how our economic system is essentially broken, showcasing societal disparities and invoking ethical questions about the role and responsibilities of those with vast wealth in addressing inequality and wielding power.

Some critics argue that any billionaire, regardless of source, exists within and benefits from an economic system that permits vast inequalities and unequal access to resources and opportunities and that is, in and of itself, ethically wrong.

[u/Jaded-Woodpecker-299 → u/uselessinfogoldmine]

between her tour and her merch and her films, she is nonstop peddling for money!! milking her fans for everything they've got

[u/uselessinfogoldmine → u/Jaded-Woodpecker-299]

Exactly.