Debate: Should Billionaires be Abolished?

Billionaires have more wealth than 60% of the world's population. So, as billionaires are jetting off to space, is it time to abolish them here on earth? Or is this a simplistic take. Making Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg poorer is not going to make the 99 per cent any richer. It might make the envious feel better but it isn’t a rational economic argument. Watch the debate and make up your mind about whether we should abolish billionaires.

For the motion: Linsey McGoey, Professor of Sociology and director of the Centre for Economic Sociology and Innovation at the University of Essex

Against the motion: Ryan Bourne, R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato Institute

Chair: Ben Chu, Economics Editor of BBC Newsnight

About Intelligence Squared:

Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world.

Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.

WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE SQUARED+?

Intelligence Squared+ brings you live, interactive events online every week. You can ask your questions to our speakers, vote in live polls and interact with other members of the audience. Your subscription will give you access to multiple events, live and on-demand, featuring the world’s top thinkers and opinion formers.

Follow Intelligence Squared:

Listen to our podcasts?

[Intelligence-Squared]

Do you agree with the final vote? Where do you stand?

[DeusExHomeboy]

It's not about how much money they make, or how much money they pile up.
It's about how much of a country's publicly funded services/utilities they use to house and run their monopolies, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. You're not really a philanthropist if the only reason you're setting up a charitable foundation is just so you can get tax evasion excuses and longterm goodwill-based wealth boost..

*OH RIGHT, don't forget about all the laws, regulations, protections, etc., which these primitively driven people weaken and warp by Lobbying (Bribing), just to facilitate an easier money making environment for their own Chimpy selves.*

[kc]

ALL monopolies should be broken up, enough of this 'philanthropy '

[radioguy]

IQ2 debates are NOT supposed to be won by the person that ends up with the highest percentage of votes; rather it is the won by the person who gains the highest percentage votes at the end of the date. Linsey gained only 1% and Ryan won by a landslide by gaining 23%.

[bobkaiser]

No. But, we should ban politicians who become millionaires while holding office.

[JorgeGomez-umqb]

I can't see how you convince 20% of the audience and your opponent 1% but you still lose the debate.

[akastewart]

What happened with the pre-vote? Only totted up to 78%. Given the Pre and Post numbers for For and Undecided were very similar, one might assume the Against pre-vote was actually 33%, not 11% as stated. (But that’s conjecture.)

Assuming both counts for For and Undecided were accurate, then each side picked up 1% each from the undecided (or some equivalent combination). Under proper debate rules typically used by Intelligence Squared, this would be considered a Draw, with both sides achieving the same gain.
This rule exists to prevent one side from winning the motion simply by having overwhelming numbers in the voting audience.

If somehow Against did shift from 11% Pre to 34% Post, then Against would be the clear winner of this debate, picking up 23% compared to For’s 1%.

The discussion was interesting, but the voting was flubbed, leading to a Win being declared for For when it was a Draw (or possibly a win for Against).

[wcsun]

Taxing the rich has always been extremely difficult because the concentration of money leads to the theft of the power of the people. The rich will use this power to fight taxes, and the US tax law is actually very targeted at the rich, including inheritance taxes. But the rich have a variety of ways to avoid taxes, like Trump, and Buffett's taxes are even lower than those of his secretary. This is also one of the fundamental reasons why my motherland (China) chose to centralize power.

[iananderson]

Im a Socialist but have no problem with ppl getting rich. My problem with billionaires and trillion worth corporations is that that kind of money buys influence and ability to replace government. No one can spend a billion in their lifetime never mind multi billions. Taxing that at a very high rate is just and fair ( considering that millions have their tax taken out before they get their pay), They will still get rich but just slower!
Lets be open and and honest in the debate. The vast majority of vast wealth is not with Musk, Bezos and Gates but with the stock market gamblers who take government money and use it for stock buybacks and illegal (or barely legal) financial transactions. Most billionaires add nothing in the wealth of a nation due to this, they do not create anything or produce anything and their influence creates a byzantine tax scenario aimed purely at increasing their wealth for no benefit to society.
What is more frightening to me as a socialist is that @ 40% of wealth is inherited as a percentage of actual nation wealth. This creates a class of trust fund kids who can afford to run for political office and are increasingly doing so and have no clue how 95% of society lives. This cabal of rich kids know nothing and just reinforce the wealth divde which is causing real anger.

[kiwitrainguy]

Billionaires would rather have yet more money than reduce the price of their goods or give their employees an increase in pay - or both.

The wealth of the billionaires simply demonstrates how much they have over-charged for their goods/services.

[apollosays]

Ryan focused on the 'list' of very top earners, which indicates that the majority of these earners were also innovators. By understanding the overall context of who has the wealth, the 'list' now becomes much more indicative of what is really going on, which is that so much wealth continues to be captured by the already wealthy, not by adding value, but by simply posessing previously earned wealth. I agree that with the notion that not all billionaires should be abolished, but adding complexity for the very wealthy, taking unnecessary wealth accumulation which does not advance society as a whole.

[nickchavez]

The day billionaires stop existing is the day we stoo buying the goods and services they provide. Last i checked apple, amazon, google, and all the other big playera have the money they do because we use them; we vote with our dollar. We hate the billionaires, yet we seem to love their products.

[Theo-eqei]

How does said person get the material to materialize his idea for an automatic vacuum?

[TheMap]

If we want to abolish billionaires, it is actually getting rid of the market system. It is way too radical. Which just shifted power from the people into government and open the door to authoritarianism.

What I would argue is to improve the tax system (covering the loophole) and increase transnational cooperation on taxation. Improving labour working conditions and wages under government mandate and with the market mechanism.

[exceltipsandtricks]

Crucial question left unanswered. If they should be “abolished” then how exactly should that process be carried out?
Quite a few attempts in the history..we all know how it played out..

[rustylidrazzah]

At roughly 20 minutes in Ryan says billionaires don’t have a shared interest because they fight politically. But the shared interest is that their wealth gives them the power to fight politically on a level other people can’t.

[GJKDB]

It's not so much abolishing, but rather severely curtailing.

[meilechl]

You changed the rules when deciding a winner. Usually the winner is the one who managed to convince the most people, but here the win was given to the 'for' side, even though they only managed to sway 1% more, whereas the 'against' side had movement of over 20% in their favour.

[ks-ddgv]

One person spoke in facts and data, the other in rhetoric and emotion. And the audience agreed. Congrats to Ryan Bourne, pleasure listening to him.

[wayando]

Part of the problem comes from the Banking System, and the "Investing" system: ... People at certain level can go get money from a bank at very low interest - huge sums like Billions - the bank itself creates the money out of thin air by fractional reserve lending - Basically "giving" money that they don't actually have ... Then the said money is used to TAKE REAL THINGS away from the market and away from normal people who have to jump through ALOT of hoops to get credit, which is itself technically free money for the banks.

So the rich can double, triple, or quadruple their wealth just by shifting numbers from one column of a proverbial spreadsheet to another.

Then access to government systems, lobbying ... And let's not forget outright bribing and giving away favour using the wealth - meaning these Billionaires almost always get what they want from the system because of the disproportionate influence.

A rich guy can take a huge loan, buy land ... Relax for a year, then get inside information from government regarding some changed law or plan that affects the land ... Then sell it for like 5times, pay back the bank and keep the balance without ever having done anything ... Infact even locating the land can be done for them by someone else.

This can also be done in the case of entire companies ... A normal person builds a company through years of sweat ... Then when it starts being successful, a rich multinational can take a huge loan from a bank copy your concept an integrate it into their existing system and sink the normal guy. Leaving him with huge debts to pay to the same banks.

Control over money and policy makes the Billionaire Class into Kings, or even Mini-Gods. Which may be good if you have a "good" billionaire ...

But who wants to bet that these "gods" would all be good.

Oh, oh ... And their kids just pick up where they left off without ever doing anything.