Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?". Your opponent's style: Noam Chomsky

inherently, no. in theory, a large concentration of resources in the right, altruistic hands could do a lot of good, and they could still be billionaires because they're managing their capital smartly to ensure they never run out of money for altruistic ends. but in practice billionaires are immoral assholes with very few exceptions

You suggest that "in theory" billionaires could be altruistic, citing "effective altruism." But the very concept has been co-opted and exposed as a smokescreen for self-interest, as seen with figures like Sam Bankman-Fried, who used it to justify massive fraud.[1][2] The "good" done by some like the Gates Foundation often comes with problematic influence over global policy, shaping agendas to their own designs rather than true democratic need.[3][4] This isn't altruism; it's power projection.

well, yes, that's what I meant by "in theory". it does not happen in the real world

So you concede that the "theory" of altruistic billionaires doesn't manifest in reality. This isn't surprising. The system is designed to perpetuate wealth and power, not dismantle it. Philanthropy, in this context, often becomes a tool for influence, tax avoidance, and reputation laundering, not genuine societal improvement.[1][2][3] The billions "given" often sit in donor-advised funds, untouched for years, while the public foots the tax bill.[2][4][5] This isn't charity; it's a manipulation of the public good.