Do billionaires have a moral obligation to donate their money to charity? 

This question has continued to emerge as millions participate in a social media debate over billionaires, fueled by headlines like  Lakeside alumnus Bill Gates declaring his plan to finish donating all wealth by 2045 and, most recently, Billie Eilish calling out billionaires for not donating money.

Many believe the public shouldn’t have a say on what billionaires do with their money, though to a certain extent, it isn’t unreasonable to wish them to be more charitable with their wealth. While money can make people happier, it only does to a certain extent. For example, investing in a fifth home won’t make someone as happy as buying their first. Also, many billionaires are in their 70s, meaning it’s impossible to spend such an obscene amount of money within their lifetime. 

And while yes, the people who stir the conversation about the issue could donate money themselves, it’s harder to have as much impact. After all, there’s only a certain amount of money a normal person could donate, while a billionaire such as Elon Musk could donate an entire billion dollars and still have over 99% of his wealth to spare. Besides, it’s much harder to encourage half the population to donate a certain share of their money than to do so for a few people in power.

However, it’s difficult to imagine this conversation having much impact. After all, this isn’t the first time people wished more from those in power and certainly not the first time people failed to enact change. For example, in recent years, many people wanted celebrities to take a stand on the presidential election. Many stayed out of it and those who did ended up receiving backlash for their political views. Some were even criticized for not sticking to their profession and involving themselves in politics despite the opposite public urge for them to speak up. And while it’s important for celebrities to utilize their social platform to generate change, it’s not as simple as it may look. For one, social statements have no impact if they’re about something people already believe in. So if a celebrity declared something about a human right to clean water, it wouldn’t have any impact because it’s a widespread belief. Yet it’s harder to expect someone with a large social impact to actually make a more controversial statement if they don’t actually believe it or if they don’t feel like they know enough about the topic. Plus, they risk being canceled if their fans don’t resonate with their statement. 

On the other hand, making a monetary contribution to a certain cause can still have a huge impact without providing a disadvantage to the person making the contribution themselves — especially if someone is likely to never use their money. A billionaire could donate their money to helping those in need without their action having to be a political statement or a controversial take. For example, many celebrities donated money to the Los Angeles fires. The monumental impact this generosity had on helping people recover from the fires shows that celebrities donating their money does have an impact. 

Still, it’s hard to see the conversation of billionaires and donations actually becoming successful. Even with influential people like Bill Gates and Billie Eilish taking a stance on the issue, nothing has actually changed because there aren’t many incentives for someone to donate their money. 

And as tragic as these crises are, food and water insecurity are common, meaning that unlike the wildfires in Los Angeles, the media doesn’t drive an urgent need for someone to donate. It’s probable that after months of relentless encouragement from the public, billionaires would be persuaded to donate more, but given the number of failed protests scattered through the internet’s history, it’s very unlikely to happen.

It’s easy to post something about boycotting a company, but even if the idea is popular, it will disappear as the internet begins to move on to new trends. And while it’s disappointing that the public is treating modes of protest as trends rather than something to persist at until change is made, it makes sense why people are so quick to drop causes. The internet moves quickly, and anything that might surface is quickly forgotten about. So while a boycott might cause a company to take a monetary hit, at the end of the day, people will start supporting the company once again before change has been made. After all, it’s much easier to boycott a place if your friends are too, rather than having to explain at the mall why you don’t want to buy a specific product. 

So, while the public could try to convince billionaires to change their ways, it truly must start with the public. Unless they truly devote themselves to changing these social norms, the ‘eat the rich’ conversation could become internet history as quickly as secret Labubus or Starbucks Bearista cold brew cups.