Should Gaga be a billionaire?

[Bronco 11,842]

4 minutes ago, tlittlemonster said:

I don't know any UK expats who would rather live in China.

Exactly, the grass is always greener, hence I'm sure you'd still rather live here in the UK than in China.

I'm not saying one country is better than the other, I'm just saying many people from Western countries take certain freedoms, customs etc. for granted.

And you're right, things in the UK are not great either, couldn't agree more. But, would you rather live in China right now?

Do you want to move there?

I know multiple expats in China. Foreign expats are well looked after by the Chinese state as it's part of their soft power diplomacy. 

My current workplace is regularly targeted by far right extremists for abuse. We've been sent home from work by the police on occasion. Meanwhile, the prime minister of the UK and the main opposition leaders encourage the behaviour. 

So yeah, I'd absolutely prefer to live & work in China where the state would ensure that no such violent risks were posed to the social order. 

As for you referencing the Hukou/Huji system in China, it doesn't make moving regions impossible. That's a falsehood, the issue is that the regions make it difficult for people to move across from a rural huji to an urban huji to protect the people already present within the urban huji. And it does lead to regional disparity. 
Similar issues exist in the UK and how we operate - we call it a postcode lottery. There's regional disparity in services - and rural areas often perform worse than urban areas here as well. It's all dependent on local political bodies and the lack of social housing provision alongside rampant profiteering and exploitation of the housing market makes it difficult for people to move around easily. 

Its the same **** with a different name. Except for China is implementing reforms to the policy to prevent social unrest that threatens the ruling party and the UK government is making sure that the exploitation gets worse as many members of the government profit from the current system and reforming it threatens them. 

[Economy 49,925]

2 hours ago, tlittlemonster said:

This sounds like an amazing idea but it doesn't work in reality.

When you live in a society where most of the wealth is distributed, people get unmotivated to work and innovate, which reduces massively the total wealth produced by a given country. In the end, there is way less to "distribute" and poverty actually increases.

Communist countries are some of the poorest and with the worst standards of living.

Of course, some countries should increase taxes on the wealthy to a certain degree, absolutely. But, it is way more complex than it looks because you also don't want to increase taxes so much that it drives the wealthy away from your country, which ultimately results in less investment, fewer jobs, worse economy etc.

Wealth inequality does not need to be this extreme to motivate ppl to work. I used to believe in this when I was younger and now realize its a load of garbage . The economic boom and industrialization North America went thru in 1950 to 1970 was way less inequitable than now and ppl still worked hard. Heck, boomers and Genx are literally a generation of workoholics who always preach to younger generations about working hard. Doesnt look like the lack of inequality killed their drive.

 

Most ppl just want the middle class to have a fair shot at prosperity and not have to struggle. Were not advocating that we have to be communist and have all jobs pay exactly the same

 

The bottom 10% or 20% making $45K to $50K annually and the top 1% or 0.1% making $500K to $750K i think is totally fine and would still encourage hard work

 

The bottom 10% making sub $30K and starving in moldy basement while the top 0.1% make millions a year+ and compound wealth to become ultra rich over time is not by any stretch of the imagination required to promote hard work

 

Id actually argue too much inequality kills motivation. When ppl feel stuck and like no amount of hard work will get them ahead people start to give up and not even try. For example here in Canada home ownership was the definition of Canadian Dream (much like the US). Now that its almost impossible for young people to reach most dont even try to attain the goal. They know they cant reach it so they settle for renting and spend their momey on casual experiences instead

 

You cant sell hard work for middle class living if it feels unreachable and I got many personal examples of specific times in my life i actualy lost motivation at work when things felt too fruatratingly pointless!

Edited 23 hours ago by Economy

[PartySick 160,898]

7 hours ago, Jakesnyders673 said:

This is so exaggerated.  Children aren't "starving" in developed countries like the U.S.

I- yes they are

Something like 11 million kids in the US live in extreme poverty where their school lunches may very well be the only food they get and those lunches are at risk of being taken away by a government bought and paid for by billionaires.

Nobody should be flying around in private jets and wearing million dollar rings if even ONE person is hungry and can't afford to eat properly tbh.

[Emvee 8,434]

Having a liberal woman become part of the billionaire club is not a “W” for us. What the ****? It means they’re a hypocrite. They profess to be about equality but engage and perpetuate  one of the most pernicious forms of inequality. 

This is nothing personal against Gaga or anyone “good” who happens to become a billionaire. But that’s not the point. A lot of “good people” have a tendency to perpetuate bad habits and/or societal patterns because they can do so, optically. Elon Musk and Trump are easy targets because they’re scoundrels, but the vast majority of billionaires are “good” people with family and friends who love them. They all, collectively, have contributed to the decay of western societies. The profits that have made them billionaires, collectively, continue to accumulate at the top while the rest of us struggle to pay for the basic necessities. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Emvee

[Mr Ricky 9,058]

Let her be a billionaire, I want high budget music videos and projects. Ok thanks 

[Jakkusan 802]

NO ONE should be a billionaire, are you serious??

[Ivy 12,613]

Yes because we need some good people who are billionaires

But I believe they shouldn't exist in general

[David Ward 9,338]

6 hours ago, Jakkusan said:

NO ONE should be a billionaire, are you serious??

I agree with you! I voted no lmao

[Gagaloo420 12]

On 9/2/2025 at 8:38 AM, David Ward said:

who tf said yes? 

I said yes  Gaga works very hard and she absolutely deserves to be a billionaire and I don't care if anyone says differently 

[Monstermilo 4,614]

i dont think pop stars should be billionaires, when they are - it kind of turns me off cuz i feel like it just proves how greedy they are. i really hate how money focused music has become - it always has been but its at a new level right now.

[RAMROD 109,726]

I'll still supporting idc

People being billionaire is not my problem, especially when they worked hard for it, it's what they do with those billions. When they do charitable act on their own accords with it, and not from societal pressure or karma farming.

[hamartia 1,379]

Yes Gaga has earned money through her own hard work and personal sacrifice, but her wealth comes from the same power structures that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. She's got investments in oil and gas like everybody else and I'm sure her accountants are making sure she doesn't have to pay her taxes lol 

I understand the knee jerk reaction that she's more deserving because she's actually doing something to earn it, unlike some random CEO, but I imagine that the money she's made through music and acting pales in comparison to what she's made from brand deals, etc. and other less "active" means of income. I don't begrudge her for it; she's just fitting into something that already exists - but she could definitely do something different if she wanted. 

Edited 7 hours ago by hamartia

[Mirrion Rizzons 11,165]

She already is, if you combine Michael’s net worth with hers 

[Economy 49,925]

16 hours ago, Emvee said:

Having a liberal woman become part of the billionaire club is not a “W” for us. What the ****? It means they’re a hypocrite. They profess to be about equality but engage and perpetuate  one of the most pernicious forms of inequality. 

This is nothing personal against Gaga or anyone “good” who happens to become a billionaire. But that’s not the point. A lot of “good people” have a tendency to perpetuate bad habits and/or societal patterns because they can do so, optically. Elon Musk and Trump are easy targets because they’re scoundrels, but the vast majority of billionaires are “good” people with family and friends who love them. They all, collectively, have contributed to the decay of western societies. The profits that have made them billionaires, collectively, continue to accumulate at the top while the rest of us struggle to pay for the basic necessities. 

This! A billionaire doesnt have to be a bad human being at their core. Ur gonna get all kinds of personalities (just like being poor doesnt always mean your a good humble person)

 

But most people arent saints and we have our human instinct and bad habbits

 

The human tendency is when u have more you become accustomed to it and you want to keep it. Your not evil for it, its called being human

 

But the system that allows for it needs to stop. U cant trust ppl to just generously check themselves out of extreme wealth and share. The system beeds check balances for people whether they want to or not so ensure no one gets that rich in the first place

[Economy 49,925]

1 hour ago, hamartia said:

Yes Gaga has earned money through her own hard work and personal sacrifice, but her wealth comes from the same power structures that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. She's got investments in oil and gas like everybody else and I'm sure her accountants are making sure she doesn't have to pay her taxes lol 

I understand the knee jerk reaction that she's more deserving because she's actually doing something to earn it, unlike some random CEO, but I imagine that the money she's made through music and acting pales in comparison to what she's made from brand deals, etc. and other less "active" means of income. I don't begrudge her for it; she's just fitting into something that already exists - but she could definitely do something different if she wanted. 

Ill disagree with the CEO comparison. Those are hard jobs too and even more legitimate if it was the founder

 

While i dont believe an entertainer is anymore deserving than a business person... either way for me it doesnt matter. No one should be that rich

 

And theres no amount of hard work that justifies it. A normal person working 40 to 50 hours a week already works hard and at best makes 50k to 70k a year... its physically impossible to work more than twice as hard as an average person. Theres a limit to how many hours u can work in a week and how fast u can hussle

 

Whether someone is an entertainer, a businessman or something else, realistically u can only work moderately harder than an average person yet some get compensated 1000X more? So yeah, I always found it a pretty fcked up argument that someone deserves it because they worked hard. The formula is really broken if thats the case

 

Income taxes and especially capital gains (above a certain amount) have to be WAY higher plain and simple

 

Id also support a check and balance like Bernie once proposed, that a CEO cant make over 50X what one of their average full time employees make (or was it 20X? Tbh that would be more fair even)