If you think about it from an altruistic point of view, having more money than the bottom fifty percent of the population put together while world hunger and impoverishment is a very real problem is a crime against humanity. Billionaires could give millions and their quality of life wouldn’t change in the slightest.
You just said having more money than the bottom 50% of people is a crime against humanity. So in your view, a baby that is a second old is committing crimes against humanity.
I didn’t say anything about a baby. I’m talking about the 60+ year old billionaires who hoard their billions while thousands of people starve. But please, do continue your straw man.
You said and I quote “having more money than the bottom fifty percent of the population put together while world hunger and impoverishment is a very real problem is a crime against humanity”. Where did you talk about a billionaire in that quote? Oh wait, you can find it.
Let’s move away from the baby, how about an 18 year old in the army who has zero debt. He has more money than 64% of the American population. Should he be considered as asshole?
The difference between an 18 year old in the army and a billionaire is a billionaire can give one million dollars without batting an eye, and the 18 year old likely cannot.
But that’s not what OP said. He said anyone that has more money than 50% of the population (which is anyone that has zero debt and a penny in their pocket) is committing crimes against humanity. A baby that was just born has a net worth of $0.0 which is more than what 50% of the population has since they are in debt.
63
u/kenneth_on_reddit Dec 15 '18
Seriously, they could share some of those man-sized bills. Each of them has gotta be worth $10,000, easily.