That’s not quite what I meant - what I mean is that kind of abstract level of wealth shouldn’t be for just one person. I think it’s fair to say that distribution of wealth is a serious problem in this country where our public services are failing, many people are dying and becoming homeless due to poverty and the top 1-5% own about 50-60% of all wealth. The rampant greed and imbalance is what needs to be addressed, obviously a form of wealth tax would be a reasonable way of doing this in today’s climate.
My issue is, we shouldn’t have got to the stage where wealth is distributed like this, and that comes down to a massive flaw in “trickle down economics” which is - nothing is enough for the super rich, and as a result very little actually trickles down. Another issue being that the free market economy is driven by profits alone, which means there by definition has to be both winners and losers. Unfortunately the “haves” are essentially playing monopoly with loaded dice and tend to win a lot more than people who either can’t afford to play, or have not had the advantages.
In a nutshell, some folk have more money than others. Always been the case, always will be.
My suggestion would be that the levers that are available to make the lives of those less fortunate than most, are deployed more intelligently. But its a balance between supporting what some would call the "hard working families", and avoiding what some would call "a lifetime on benefits".
I dont pretend I have the answers, but what I do know is that whatever ones favourite solution is, you need to have a thriving economy, jobs, and stability re interest rates to actually deliver it.
And to take 3 random billionaires, Richard Branson, James Dyson, and Steve Lansdown, all 3 have contributed massively to the GDP/employment/tax take for the UK. Way more than any politician has.
