[minikites]

>If you're giving billions away in a philanthropic organization that you run (ie Gates), then you've found new utility for that money.

Billionaires give away far less of their money compared to the average person:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/ceo-says-billionaires-...

>Based on these figures, MarketWatch reported Bezos donated just .5 percent of his net worth last year - a quarter of the 2 percent the average American donates each year.

Also, why should money be concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy, does their wealth make them more qualified to decide how it's spent compared to society/government?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/12/americ...

>First off, the amounts involved are tiny relative to the fortunes behind them. Bezos’s $100m, for example, amounts to about 11 days of his income.

>Well-publicized philanthropy also conveniently distracts attention from how several of these billionaires are endangering their workers and, by extension, the public.

>And why should we believe that Gates or any other billionaire’s “boldness” necessarily reflects society’s values and needs? Oligarchies aren’t the same as democracies.

[giantg2]

I think you're getting off track or putting words in my mouth.

"Based on these figures, MarketWatch reported Bezos donated just .5 percent of his net worth last year - a quarter of the 2 percent the average American donates each year."

I'm not looking at percent of net worth. Most of the time that is not the "money" that we are talking about here and would not be subject to the utility and use being discussed. For example, the vast majority of Bezos' worth is tied up stock. Also, not every billionaire is the same. Some may not be giving much, but there are many who have pledged to give away the majority of their fortunes.

"Also, why should money be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, does that make them more qualified to decide how it's spent compared to society/government?"

I've made no claims or mention on this topic.

"Well-publicized philanthropy also conveniently distracts attention from how several of these billionaires are endangering their workers and, by extension, the public."

Again, not part of my discussion. However, I will say that I find this to be untrue when you see articles coming out discussing this very thing (ie your quote).

"Oligarchies aren’t the same as democracies."

Again, off topic. I agree that they are different. I even agree with the implied part about living in an oligarchy. However, that oligarchy in my opinion is more based on if someone is in the ruling class with special privileges and the power to ignore laws when they want (politicians, judges, cops, DAs, etc) than being a billionaire (although money can help influence).

[minikites]

>Most of the time that is not the "money" that we are talking about here and would not be subject to the utility and use being discussed. For example, the vast majority of Bezos' worth is tied up stock.

It could be subject to the same utility if we taxed it, that's what I was getting at. Wealthy people aren't using money that society could put to great use.

>Also, not every billionaire is the same. Some may not be giving much, but there are many who have pledged to give away the majority of their fortunes.

Why settle for "some" when we could tax all of them?

[giantg2]

Again, this whole 'tax the rich' bent you are on is off-topic. In fact, it seems you are not understanding utility in this context of marginal utility.

"It could be subject to the same utility if we taxed it, that's what I was getting at."

"Wealthy people aren't using money that society could put to great use."

Then you could say that the average person's 401k isn't being used either. But investments are a use of money that do contribute to society in providing capital to businesses and individuals. Gains on those investments are also taxable.

There are plenty of things we could do, but that's not really what we are discussing here.

[minikites]

>Then you could say that the average person's 401k isn't being used either.

But the average person has much more marginal utility for their amount of wealth. Going by the average 401k balances here (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/01061...), the marginal utility of dollars $38,401, $160,001, etc is much greater than even millions of dollars at Bezos and Gates level wealth. What else am I missing about utility in this context?

>Gains on those investments are also taxable.

At a much lower rate than income, further cementing the advantages of the ultra-wealthy.

[giantg2]

"But the average person has much more marginal utility for their amount of wealth."

Not while it's invested and locked away in a 401k, according to your comment about it not being used (presumably consumption based):

"Wealthy people aren't using money that society could put to great use." Emphasis mine

"What else am I missing about utility in this context?"

This thread was in response to someone claiming money has less use when you have more of it, which isn't really what marginal utility is about.

"At a much lower rate than income, further cementing the advantages of the ultra-wealthy."

Ok... we aren't really discussing rewriting the tax code.

[Supermancho]

> Also, why should money be concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy, does their wealth make them more qualified to decide how it's spent compared to society/government?

This is why Bill Gates is still a monster to me. The amount of damage he did through Microsoft over the decades (both corrupting culture so everyone is tied to using MS Windows and the people MSFT economically wiped out) cannot be measured. His after-the-fact giving does not make up for it.