Taylor Swift becomes a billionaire

[faysalaaa 2,936]

6 minutes ago, NATAH said:

i shouldn't have to explain it to you when it's painfully obvious

Or maybe because you dont really understand or know why being a billionaire is unethical, its just a phrase you know and hear being said in your bubble.

Billionaires being unethical is a very new western concept, so im trying to understand it by having this conversation as a foreigner, but then I get guys like you saying ITS OBVIOUS lol

Edited April 3 by faysalaaa1

[Dennis 8,391]

The way we know if any of y'all were offered 1B$, you'd take it and run with it and we'd never hear from you again 

[RAMROD 104,125]

7 hours ago, pachinko said:

I bet she is voting for Trump too. 

That's ridiculous.

And I better see this same negative energy when our fave get to be Billionaire too 

[faysalaaa 2,936]

15 minutes ago, Gaga2645 said:

No, because almost everyone in the world is not a billionaire 

I believe if you make extra privileged money (not only billionaires), you should give money to help people. I apply this to everyone that is considered "privileged" which alot of people are. In my religion and country, everyone gives 2.5% of their total savings and wealth to the poor (but its voluntary).

Edited April 3 by faysalaaa1

[olive specter 1,166]

3 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

Okay so its not unethical to be a billionaire, its unethical to not give people in need money. Which applies to almost everyone in the world.

not sure how did you get to that conclusion, but that's not what i said. and i did my best to make it as easy as possible. maybe it's a language barrier, since you're a foreigner. maybe you just don't want to understand.

2 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

Or maybe because you dont really understand or know why being a billionaire is unethical, its just a phrase you know and hear being said in your bubble.

Billionaires being unethical is a very new western concept, so im trying to understand it by having this conversation as a foreigner, but then I get guys like you saying ITS OBVIOUS lol

being a billionare is unethical for many reasons

most of the times earing this amounts of money involves explotation of your workers and slavery of some kind.

but even if you didn't exploit anyone

if you have more then you and your grand-grand kids will ever need and you still don't want to give some of it away then you are selfish and you don't care about other people's suffering that your money could end. and for most people having the ability to end someone's suffering but not doing it just becuase it doesn't benifits you directly is unethical and horrible.

and it's not a new concept btw. pretty sure having more then you need and not sharing it was always considered a bad thing. not only in a social context, but also in a religious one.

2 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

I believe if you make extra privileged money (not only billionaires), you should give money to help people. I apply this to everyone that is considered "privileged" which alot of people are. In my religion and country, everyone gives 2.5% of their total savings and wealth to the poor (but its voluntary).

if that's your belief then i'm even more confused as to why are you having such a hard time understanding the point. if you belive anyone with extra money should use it to help others, then billionares should do it even more, because they have more than anybody else. and unlike people who just make a bit more than what they need, billionares don't need to worry about saving for a harder time, because they are long past it.

Edited April 4 by olive specter

[King of the Fall 3,778]

I thought this is old news? I could have sworn that I heard about her becoming a billionaire weeks ago

Edited April 4 by King of the Fall

[faysalaaa 2,936]

6 hours ago, olive specter said:

most of the times earing this amounts of money involves explotation of your workers and slavery of some kind.

but even if you didn't exploit anyone

if you have more then you and your grand-grand kids will ever need and you still don't want to give some of it away then you are selfish and you don't care about other people's suffering that your money could end. and for most people having the ability to end someone's suffering but not doing it just becuase it doesn't benifits you directly is unethical and horrible.

and it's not a new concept btw. pretty sure having more then you need and not sharing it was always considered a bad thing. not only in a social context, but also in a religious one.

if that's your belief then i'm even more confused as to why are you having such a hard time understanding the point. if you belive anyone with extra money should use it to help others, then billionares should do it even more, because they have more than anybody else. and unlike people who just make a bit more than what they need, billionares don't need to worry about saving for a harder time, because they are long past it.

You said "most of the time" being a billionaire is unethical, which to me means its possible to be ethically a billionaire. Being a billionaire in itself is not unethical, its just that statistically speaking, billionaires take the unethical route.

Any money exchange in our system today between a worker and owner will be exploitative in nature, its not specifically billionaires that exploit workers, even small businesses do.

There is alot of people that make 100K a year, and they spend it all on fashion and cars, are they also unethical? or is it just the billionaires that are unethical? what about millionaires? what about regular people that participate in slave and child labor when they can easily boycott it? To me its a universal thing that applies to everyone, I understand that its worse when a billionaire does it, but it still applies to all of us. Religion holds us all accountable, not just privileged people.

I dont have a hard time understanding that billionaires should give they money away to help people, I completely support that as a religious person myself, I just have a hard time with the idea of saying being a billionaire is unethical.

Edited April 4 by faysalaaa1

[AyeshaErotica 1,420]

15 hours ago, PartySick said:

I have to wonder why they consider her the first one to become a billionaire off of music when MJ is right there? His name hit a billion+ in worth years ago and his estate certainly isn't selling makeup or anything.

 

Taylor Swift is an inflation billionaire. If we were in 1990, her net worth would be "only" 450 million $. Still very much but not a billionaire.

I don't know MJs net worth in 1990 but if it was 450 million, he'd be equally rich as TS if we'd do an inflation-adjusted comparison. So the real gap between MJ & TS is not as big as we think.

"$450,000,000 in 1990 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1,068,452,180.57 today, an increase of $618,452,180.57 over 34 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 2.58% per year between 1990 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 137.43%.

This means that today's prices are 2.37 times as high as average prices since 1990, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index. A dollar today only buys 42.117% of what it could buy back then."

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1990?amount=450000000

 

 

 

Edited April 4 by Okinawa

[Starmie25 13,141]

Bruno's influence 

[olive specter 1,166]

3 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

You said "most of the time" being a billionaire is unethical, which to me means being a billionaire in itself is not unethical, its just that statistically speaking, billionaires take the unethical route. Which is different from saying being a billionaire is unethical, because if it was unethical in itself, there wouldnt be an ethical route to begin with.

Any money earned exchange in our system today between a worker and owner will be exploitative in nature, its not specifically billionaires that exploit workers, even small businesses do.

There is alot of people that make 100K a year, and they spend it all on fashion and cars, are they also unethical, or is it just the billionaires that are unethical? what about millionaires? what about regular people that participate in slave and child labor when they can easily boycott it? To me its a universal thing that applies to everyone, I understand that its worse for a billionaire when he does it, but it still applies to all of us. Religion holds us all accountable.

I dont have a hard time understanding that billionaires should give they money away to help people, I completely support that as a religious person myself, I just have a hard time with the idea of saying being a billionaire is unethical.

i didn't say "being a billionaire is unethical most of times"

i said that most of the times it involves exploitation and slavery

then i told you another reason why it's unethical, this time always, not mostly

you're changing my words.

Edited April 4 by olive specter

[faysalaaa 2,936]

1 hour ago, olive specter said:

i didn't say "being a billionaire is unethical most of times"

i said that most of the times it involves exploitation and slavery

then i told you another reason why it's unethical, this time always, not mostly

you're changing my words.

You can still be a billionaire and give alot of your money away. What if I had 2 billions, and gave 50% of my money to change society and help people?

[SimonBaetens 6,745]

one thousand million dollars, absolutely insane

[nATAH 42,275]

1 hour ago, faysalaaa1 said:

You can still be a billionaire and give alot of your money away. What if I had 2 billions, and gave 50% of my money to change society and help people?

you could give away 99% and still live a happy, comfortable and save life (which is the point)

1% left over is 20 million

Edited April 4 by NATAH

[NewUsername 10,998]

I don't like the "only by music" narrative. Ok, it's mostly from music, but she has also had million dollars sponsorships.

[nATAH 42,275]

23 minutes ago, NewUsername said:

I don't like the "only by music" narrative. Ok, it's mostly from music, but she has also had million dollars sponsorships.

my thoughts exactly lmao but i guess they're not companies started up by her like haus labs or fenty beauty etc, which is probably what they mean