I have a few statements about richness. I think it is a mistake to avoid questioning the moral justifications of your wealth. Because I think that personal decisions are important. For example, I am a very wealthy person and I can help people I do not choose not to help, and when they choose to retain their wealth instead of giving them a billionaire, they realize something.
When you start discussing whether richness is moral, you can be dragged into some logical impasse. If I am obliged to use the service to help people, do I have to continue to do it as poor? Of course, this obligation connects the people who make luxury spending and their savings to people who do not spend it on the treatment of children with malaria if they do not need it. But the point I want to draw attention to here is that as your wealth grows, your moral obligation also increases. If you earn $ 50,000 a year, or if your annual salary is $ 100,000, we can discuss how much you have to spend to help people. But if you're earning $ 250,000 or $ 1 million, it's right that you have to give up a large portion of your income. With $ 100,000 you can live a fairly relaxed life, live in luxury and pleasure. Super rich, untold "millionaires and billionaires" are constantly wasting resources that can be used to make things more humane and more beautiful. If you are a billionaire, you can open a hospital and services free of charge. You can buy lots of abandoned homes in Baltimore, repair them and donate them to needy families. You can help any child not leave home without eating lunch.
