There are two trains of thought in the comment section: one that argues because the billionaire made the money himself (unless he&#x2F;she inherited it) he&#x2F;she should be entitled to distribute it and the other that he&#x2F;she may be better positioned to do so than the state. You can argue that the billionaire was only able to make so much money because the country&#x2F;state he&#x2F;she lives in provided the necessary infrastructure and environment. Paid for by the tax payer.
As Warren Buffett famously said:&quot;Had I been less fortunate and be borne in another country I probably would have become lion fodder.&quot; Hence, he&#x2F;she should pay his taxes as a payback to the taxpayer. You can also argue that the billionaire, because he&#x2F;she is so successful, must be better in determining what to do with his&#x2F;her money than the state. However, research suggests that many successful entrepreneurs had significant luck (as Buffett&#x27;s quote suggests too). Take successful hedge fund managers for example. It also runs against the idea of Democracy. Because if you follow through with this line of thought you may well abolish any elections and leave it to the billionaires to decide who rules - which is almost the case in the US, isn&#x27;t it?