Photo by Smol Fortune
The concept of having “enough money,” is often thought of as something that is entirely dependent on personal circumstances.
Whether determining if you have enough funds to retire, buy a house, pay your bills, or do whatever else it is that’s bringing about the question of if you have the means to do so, the conclusion generally hinges on your income, savings, and monetary decisions.
Having “enough money,” however, is influenced by more than just individual choices.
Even though people have different lifestyles and incur different costs, everyone has fairly similar if not the same basic needs (food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc…), so the fact that not everyone can afford the bare essentials means there is a flaw in the overall wealth distribution system.
That’s a TON of money. It’s definitely too much to solely be dispersed among five people and the fact that it’s happening while five billion others are losing money doesn’t make it look any better.
With only so much money to go around and the majority of it going to those who already hold the most of it, there’s an undeniable imbalance. You can scrimp and save all you want, but the reality is that your having “enough money” is rooted in the global issue of wealth gap.
In order to address the disparity, it has to be acknowledged that anyone with billions of dollars has “enough money,” and does not need any more. It is not as though financial planning is impossible when wealth is absurdly high. Admitting that they have too much is calculable and simply the acknowledgement of math. There is no reason for billionaires to be slurping up enormous piles of bills and coins like repulsive versions of Kirby.
If there’s not an end point to billionaires amassing their wealth, there is not only nothing left for anyone else, it also begs the question of what exactly the accumulation is for…
We are part of a society in which we’re constantly fed the message that the worth of our possessions and our status is the equivalent of our value as a person. Extremely expensive experiences such as going on a superyacht might bring bragging rights due to their exclusivity, but they’re also an extravagant way to bury insecurity.
Am I saying that mere multi-millionaire, actor, and frequent superyacht charterer Leonardo DiCaprio is insecure? The man who was idolized for being a teen heartthrob thirty years ago and is now clinging to youth by only dating women under the age of 26?
Of course that man is insecure and I hope his infant aquatic dating agency is demolished by orcas.
Large concentrated amounts of money mean power, control, attention, and authority. If not the indicators of ego problems, it sounds like billionaires are indulging their kinks at the world’s expense (in which case, I am happily available to berate said billionaires for a reasonable price — please stop destroying the planet with big dumb boats).
Allowing the wallets and egos of billionaires to ceaselessly inflate is dangerous and not sustainable. Money is intended to be a medium of exchange. If it’s concentrated in the hands of a select few it is simply a tool of exploitation.
There is such thing as “enough money.” It is a limit that needs to be applied to those with the most of it instead of a constant worry imposed on the people whose earnings are significantly less.
The wealthiest have more than enough money and it’s time to share.
One way to do this is by taxing the rich appropriately. If interested in learning about this and signing Oxfam’s U.S. petition to tax the rich, you can do so here.
