WEBVTT - From billionaire boom to trillionaire threat 0:00:05.280 --> 0:00:05.680 Kiota. 0:00:05.760 --> 0:00:09.080 I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a 0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:11.520 daily podcast presented by. 0:00:11.320 --> 0:00:19.279 The New Zealand Herald. While the world ponders whether. 0:00:19.120 --> 0:00:23.600 Being a billionaire is ethical in these challenging times, another 0:00:23.640 --> 0:00:30.360 potential dilemma has arisen trillionaires. Tesla founder Elon Musk is 0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:33.840 on track to becoming the world's first trillion dollar man, 0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:36.879 and it comes at a time when billionaire wealth has 0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:40.720 surged three times faster last year than the year before, 0:00:41.080 --> 0:00:44.080 while the number of people living in poverty has barely 0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:48.480 changed since nineteen ninety. Today on the front page, ox 0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:51.920 vam Altieroa's Climate Justice League, Nick Henry is with. 0:00:51.880 --> 0:00:56.400 Us to discuss whether ethical billionaires are even a thing and. 0:00:56.280 --> 0:01:04.000 How we might be able to address wealth inequality. Right next, 0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:09.280 So let's talk money. What are oxfam's latest figures on 0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:10.520 billionaire wealth. 0:01:12.200 --> 0:01:18.440 Yeah? Well, OXFAM International producers a report Global Inequality Report 0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:23.360 every January, and that coincides with the global meeting at 0:01:23.440 --> 0:01:27.760 Davos in Switzerland out of the World Economic Forum, where 0:01:28.200 --> 0:01:31.959 a lot of billionaires are in attendance and the focus 0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:37.000 is on the megawealthy at that ski resort in Switzerland. 0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:41.360 And so we really try to draw attention to the 0:01:41.400 --> 0:01:46.360 excesses of wealth and the inequality that that's creating in 0:01:46.400 --> 0:01:52.040 the world, compared to really the stagnation of progress for 0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:57.200 not just the poorest, but the majority of people in 0:01:57.240 --> 0:02:01.800 the world who have not seen their wealth substantially increase. 0:02:01.920 --> 0:02:07.560 While the wealth of billionaires is trending upwards at times 0:02:07.560 --> 0:02:09.280 it seems like an exponential increase. 0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:15.040 Yeah, I mean, billionaire wealth surged by two trillion dollars 0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:15.959 last year. 0:02:16.200 --> 0:02:19.160 According to this report. How does that compare to us? 0:02:19.200 --> 0:02:25.640 Suppose the rest of us, the majority of the world, 0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:29.120 have not seen an increase in their wealth. 0:02:30.680 --> 0:02:35.880 And the only reason that we're not going backwards entirely 0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:41.040 is the progress made by countries like China in reducing 0:02:41.240 --> 0:02:46.239 absolute poverty. But even in China you have growing inequality. 0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:50.120 In India you have growing inequality as the majority of 0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:53.959 the wealth is captured by a growing number of billionaires, 0:02:54.600 --> 0:02:59.480 and wealth inequality is growing even faster than income inequality. 0:02:59.560 --> 0:03:02.560 The majority of people, and I think the majority of 0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:05.320 New Zealanders could relate to this, find it pretty hard 0:03:05.360 --> 0:03:09.839 to save more than a small buffer week to week, 0:03:09.960 --> 0:03:12.760 So the majority of people, it's a bit of an 0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:15.959 American expression, But you'd say a living paycheck to paycheck. 0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:21.200 While the billionaires are really stacking cash at a faster 0:03:21.320 --> 0:03:23.160 rate that they can, then they can spend it at 0:03:23.160 --> 0:03:25.440 a faster rate that they are willing to give it away. 0:03:26.639 --> 0:03:30.160 Their wealth is growing faster than they even seem to 0:03:30.160 --> 0:03:32.960 know what to do with it. I think the rest 0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:35.360 of us would have some pretty good ideas about what 0:03:35.480 --> 0:03:40.080 to do with some of that wealth. Collectively, and bearing 0:03:40.120 --> 0:03:43.840 in mind that if billionaires paid their fair share of 0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:48.840 taxes like there, like what an ordinary person reading the 0:03:48.880 --> 0:03:52.720 tax code would think that they should be paying, they 0:03:52.800 --> 0:03:58.840 would still be living an unimaginable luxury. As multi billionaires 0:03:58.960 --> 0:04:03.920 or as you know, multi multi millionaires, their lifestyles are 0:04:03.960 --> 0:04:06.960 not really a threat. What needs to be rained in 0:04:07.320 --> 0:04:12.320 is the level of power and influence, disproportionate influence over 0:04:12.360 --> 0:04:17.680 the economy and the political system, This accumulation of essentially 0:04:17.760 --> 0:04:19.040 useless wealth. 0:04:20.800 --> 0:04:24.280 You mentioned billionaires, and do it having more money than 0:04:24.320 --> 0:04:26.240 what they know what to do with. I was just 0:04:26.279 --> 0:04:29.240 having a conversation in the newsroom that a million dollars 0:04:29.320 --> 0:04:33.240 used to be an aspiration, you know, becoming a millionaire. 0:04:33.520 --> 0:04:34.120 You know what I mean. 0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:37.800 But you'd be hard pressed to find an apartment or 0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:40.359 even a two bedroom home in Auckland for undred a 0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:44.359 million dollars these days. How many more billionaires are we 0:04:44.440 --> 0:04:45.000 looking at? 0:04:46.120 --> 0:04:49.560 Well, just on that first point, I think in New 0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:54.760 Zealand dollars, to be a millionaire is basically to maybe 0:04:54.760 --> 0:04:57.680 own your own house in a major city or have 0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:03.120 saved for a retirement a million dollars. I was just 0:05:03.920 --> 0:05:08.560 looking at the figures on a household median income, So 0:05:08.600 --> 0:05:12.360 that's the middle New Zealand household. A million dollars is 0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:16.120 about fourteen years of income, and of course no one 0:05:16.160 --> 0:05:19.480 saves their entire income, but it is fourteen years of 0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:23.680 about the middle household income. But of course a billion 0:05:23.720 --> 0:05:27.280 dollars is a thousand times that, So that's fourteen thousand 0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:31.360 years of the middle household income. And when you put 0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:35.080 that in perspective, it's possible to earn a million dollars 0:05:36.000 --> 0:05:42.280 just by having you know, maybe two people working sort 0:05:42.279 --> 0:05:46.039 of middle income jobs for most of their working lives. 0:05:46.080 --> 0:05:51.039 You could earn a million dollars. But it's impossible for 0:05:51.080 --> 0:05:54.600 anyone to earn a billion dollars. You're talking at that 0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:59.640 point about wealth generated by wealth, wealth generated by a 0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:02.840 qum relating the benefits of work that other people are 0:06:02.839 --> 0:06:08.960 doing and really disproportionately. So you asked how many new 0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:14.839 billionaires we're seeing? So and the last time Oxford produced 0:06:14.839 --> 0:06:18.400 our report in January this year, we looked at the 0:06:19.200 --> 0:06:24.320 twenty twenty four figures up until November twenty twenty four 0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:30.400 and found two thousand, seven hundred and sixty nine billionaires 0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:32.359 in the world. So that was two hundred and four 0:06:32.440 --> 0:06:36.960 more than the previous year twenty twenty three, and we 0:06:37.000 --> 0:06:42.920 said that that meant nearly four a week new billionaires. 0:06:43.320 --> 0:06:43.760 Wow. 0:06:44.680 --> 0:06:48.719 And I just looked this morning at the latest figures 0:06:48.760 --> 0:06:52.159 because it is November twenty twenty five, and with the 0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:55.400 caveat that this will all be checked by the oxfand 0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:59.760 Global team and the methodology will be applied as diligently 0:06:59.760 --> 0:07:04.960 as always do for the January report. So without holding 0:07:05.000 --> 0:07:10.040 me to that level of scrudiny brutany on my methodology, 0:07:10.680 --> 0:07:15.080 just looking at the Forbes Rich List, which is what 0:07:15.120 --> 0:07:21.480 we use each year to to find those figures, I 0:07:21.600 --> 0:07:30.560 see three twenty two billionaires currently on that Forbes Rich 0:07:30.680 --> 0:07:34.640 List as of today, and that's an increase of three 0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:38.280 hundred and fifty three from this time last year, which 0:07:38.360 --> 0:07:43.480 means more than six new billionaires every week, So that 0:07:43.560 --> 0:07:48.320 shows an escalation on the on the previous year. 0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:52.920 Well, forty two million Americans are facing the risk of 0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:55.840 going hungry amid the longest government shutdown in American history 0:07:55.840 --> 0:07:59.320 because of food stamps being put on hold. Tesla's shareholders 0:07:59.320 --> 0:08:03.880 just voted to give Elon Musk potential trillion dollar paypack. 0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:06.840 That's two hundred and seventy five million dollars per day 0:08:07.320 --> 0:08:09.880 over the next ten years. How would you even spend that? 0:08:10.280 --> 0:08:13.520 This comes after Musk reportedly threatened to walk away from 0:08:13.520 --> 0:08:16.240 the company if they refused his raise. The payment will 0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:17.760 be in the form of more than four hundred and 0:08:17.840 --> 0:08:21.000 twenty million shares of Tesla stock. There is a big 0:08:21.080 --> 0:08:23.760 caveat here. Tesla has to reach an eight point five 0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:27.080 trillion dollar market value that's almost five times higher than 0:08:27.120 --> 0:08:27.800 it is today. 0:08:28.520 --> 0:08:31.120 I mean, we're talking about this at a time when 0:08:31.280 --> 0:08:34.800 Elon Musk is in fact on track to becoming the 0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:40.760 world's first trillionaire, with a one trillion dollar Tesla compensation 0:08:40.880 --> 0:08:45.520 plan approved recently. What implications do you think does this 0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:48.160 potential trillionaire. 0:08:47.400 --> 0:08:50.200 Status have for that global wealth distribution. 0:08:51.880 --> 0:08:55.480 Yeah, well, Elon Musk would be about halfway there on 0:08:55.600 --> 0:09:01.679 the current figures, which show him on the Forbes list 0:09:01.720 --> 0:09:06.120 as four hundred and sixty six billion dollars net worth today, 0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:10.720 and that fluctuates today and it might be different again 0:09:10.760 --> 0:09:13.640 by the time this podcast goes to air. But Forbes 0:09:13.679 --> 0:09:17.319 says that he lost seventeen billion dollars yesterday and it 0:09:17.360 --> 0:09:19.960 will go up again tomorrow and maybe down next week 0:09:20.000 --> 0:09:23.160 and up again, because this is bouncing around with the 0:09:23.200 --> 0:09:27.120 value of the Tesla stock price and whatever crypto assets 0:09:27.160 --> 0:09:31.439 and other things are involved in that net worth. And 0:09:31.520 --> 0:09:38.360 to put that in perspective, the like the national deficit 0:09:38.480 --> 0:09:43.120 of the New Zealand government as six point seven billion 0:09:43.200 --> 0:09:48.320 New Zealand dollars, which would be less than four billion US, 0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:54.040 which means that Elon Musk lost about four times more 0:09:54.080 --> 0:09:56.640 than that just yesterday on the stock market. And we'll 0:09:56.640 --> 0:09:58.360 make it again next week and then it will be 0:09:58.800 --> 0:10:05.240 bouncing around. But the long term trend is yeah, going 0:10:05.320 --> 0:10:08.240 up by hundreds of billions of dollars. And in twenty 0:10:08.280 --> 0:10:11.640 twenty four we estimated that there would be a trillionaire 0:10:11.840 --> 0:10:15.480 within ten years looking at the figures from twenty twenty three, 0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:21.880 and the latest report from this year is estimating five 0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:27.559 trillionaires within a decade. So that's the trend that we're on. 0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:31.720 We're on track for an ever smaller number of people 0:10:31.800 --> 0:10:36.600 to control an ever larger proportion of the world's wealth, 0:10:37.559 --> 0:10:43.400 comparable to half of humanity. And the consequences for that 0:10:44.160 --> 0:10:48.600 for our economy are ever greater instability, and for our 0:10:48.679 --> 0:10:53.200 political system is an ever greater concentration of power and influence. 0:10:55.200 --> 0:10:59.600 And you see that especially in the United States, but 0:10:59.679 --> 0:11:03.480 also in other countries. And one of the reasons I 0:11:03.520 --> 0:11:07.120 pick on the United States is not just the levels 0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:10.600 of inequality and the number of billionaires there, but it's 0:11:10.640 --> 0:11:14.320 also a sign of how we can make a difference 0:11:14.640 --> 0:11:19.079 to the influence of billionaires. Because you know, anyone who 0:11:19.080 --> 0:11:22.040 follows US political news will know that the Citizens United 0:11:22.440 --> 0:11:29.040 decision that removed caps on donations to political candidates and 0:11:29.200 --> 0:11:35.920 political action committees was and calling that donation a kind 0:11:35.920 --> 0:11:40.920 of free speech, that removed the limits that had been 0:11:40.960 --> 0:11:45.720 in place on billionaire in corporate power to influence elections. 0:11:46.720 --> 0:11:50.600 You see some hopeful signs of candidates who pleedged not 0:11:50.720 --> 0:11:56.160 to take money from those kinds of big donors. Or packs. 0:11:56.679 --> 0:12:01.840 But here in A and zelland we do have limits 0:12:01.880 --> 0:12:05.480 on political donations, and we need to keep up that 0:12:06.080 --> 0:12:09.720 kind of scrutiny. So it's not a foregone conclusion that 0:12:09.800 --> 0:12:13.840 billionaires and corporations should control our political system. We can 0:12:14.520 --> 0:12:17.360 regulate that and rain that in. And I'd actually go 0:12:17.360 --> 0:12:19.760 a bit further and say, it's not a foregone conclusion 0:12:19.880 --> 0:12:25.920 that these extremes of wealth, these individuals and increasingly monopolistic 0:12:25.960 --> 0:12:28.480 corporations should control our economy. 0:12:28.559 --> 0:12:28.800 Either. 0:12:29.360 --> 0:12:34.360 We can and should make democratic decisions about the structure 0:12:34.559 --> 0:12:39.400 and the incentives of our economy so that everyone has 0:12:39.440 --> 0:12:42.480 the chance for success in their own lives, and that 0:12:42.480 --> 0:12:48.840 that's success, that that's not sacrificed to the really useless 0:12:49.120 --> 0:12:52.680 measures of success of this vast accumulation of wealth. 0:12:53.920 --> 0:12:56.280 I'd say, if you have money, it would be great 0:12:56.360 --> 0:12:58.760 to use it for good things and maybe give it 0:12:58.760 --> 0:13:06.120 to some people that need it. And love you all, 0:13:06.160 --> 0:13:08.000 but there's a few people in here that have a 0:13:08.000 --> 0:13:16.040 lot more money than me. And uh, if you're a billionaire, 0:13:16.400 --> 0:13:20.959 why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give 0:13:21.000 --> 0:13:24.040 your money away. Shortie's love you guys, thank you so much. 0:13:24.400 --> 0:13:29.040 This extraordinary Billie Eilish will be donating proceeds from her 0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:33.000 Hit Me Hard and Soft tour to support organizations, projects 0:13:33.040 --> 0:13:37.600 and voices dedicated food equity, climate justice, reducing carbon pollution, 0:13:38.120 --> 0:13:41.640 and combating the climate crisis. That donation, ladies and gentlemen, 0:13:42.000 --> 0:13:44.640 will be eleven point five million dollars. 0:13:47.559 --> 0:13:51.360 Looking into billionaire wealth and the wealth inequality around the world, 0:13:51.360 --> 0:13:54.320 I've heard this term ethical billionaire, but I suppose that'll 0:13:54.360 --> 0:13:58.199 become ethical trillionaire in a decade's time. But what is 0:13:58.240 --> 0:14:00.599 this idea of an ethical billionaire? 0:14:03.400 --> 0:14:06.600 Well, I'd be tempted to say it's an oxymoron, but 0:14:07.880 --> 0:14:12.559 that's a bit too easy because it's it's not really 0:14:12.600 --> 0:14:18.199 fair or particularly useful to blame the individuals for winning 0:14:18.280 --> 0:14:21.600 a rigged game. And so I'd say, what's really unethical 0:14:21.800 --> 0:14:27.120 is the economic system that we've allowed to create these 0:14:27.160 --> 0:14:31.640 extremes of wealth. And so if we're looking for ethics, 0:14:31.720 --> 0:14:34.240 then I think that's the first question is what kinds 0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:37.160 of regulations do we want to put in place to 0:14:38.120 --> 0:14:41.359 spread the wealth more evenly and to avoid the extremes 0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:47.080 that we're seeing. But to answer the question, I think 0:14:47.120 --> 0:14:52.880 that the really the only way to be if one 0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:56.720 found oneself in the position of being a billionaire. The 0:14:56.720 --> 0:14:59.640 only ethical way to cope with that situation, I think 0:14:59.640 --> 0:15:02.440 would be to put in place a plan to not 0:15:02.560 --> 0:15:07.920 be a billionaire anymore and more. Billionaires could start by 0:15:08.200 --> 0:15:11.240 paying their fair share of taxes. You could simply give 0:15:11.400 --> 0:15:15.960 that instruction to your accountant to comply with the regulations, 0:15:16.000 --> 0:15:23.360 but also to support as as many wealthy individuals do, 0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:28.600 actually support a tightening of loopholes so that they do 0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:33.120 pay their fair share. And then there's the question of philanthropy, 0:15:33.400 --> 0:15:37.760 and so someone who does have more money than they 0:15:37.840 --> 0:15:43.320 need and after paying their fair share of taxes can 0:15:43.360 --> 0:15:46.120 and should look to do good with that money and 0:15:46.160 --> 0:15:51.680 distribute to causes that have a broader social benefit. But 0:15:51.920 --> 0:15:58.040 there's no compulsion on billionaires to do that, and I 0:15:58.080 --> 0:16:00.240 think we have to be a bit skeptical about where 0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:06.720 any billionaire today is fulfilling their ethical obligations to society. 0:16:08.280 --> 0:16:12.800 The one example that's sometimes used of a billionaire who 0:16:12.800 --> 0:16:16.280 did do what I'm saying of giving up a large 0:16:16.280 --> 0:16:20.840 share of their wealth was the late Chuck Feenie, an 0:16:20.840 --> 0:16:24.480 Irish American billionaire who made his money on duty free stores. 0:16:24.520 --> 0:16:32.200 I think, and without publicizing or trumpeting. This actually confidentially 0:16:32.240 --> 0:16:38.720 transferred his wealth into a charitable trust, but which over 0:16:38.760 --> 0:16:43.760 the course of the next decade gave away the majority 0:16:43.800 --> 0:16:49.320 of his wealth. And what was important about that is 0:16:49.360 --> 0:16:53.120 that that was the mission of the charitable trust, and 0:16:53.320 --> 0:16:55.920 it was wound up in twenty twenty having given away 0:16:56.400 --> 0:17:00.680 billions of dollars. And when Chuck Feenie he died, he 0:17:00.760 --> 0:17:03.720 was no longer a billionaire. He was very comfortable as 0:17:03.760 --> 0:17:06.560 a multi millionaire living his best life, but he had 0:17:06.560 --> 0:17:10.879 given away enough money to no longer be a billionaire. 0:17:11.440 --> 0:17:15.680 And there are examples of other billionaires today who seemed 0:17:15.720 --> 0:17:20.719 to be on that track. Mackenzie Scott, who's a successful author, 0:17:21.760 --> 0:17:25.240 co founder of Amazon, and was married for a long 0:17:25.280 --> 0:17:31.880 time to Jeff Bezos, helping raise their children and contributing 0:17:31.920 --> 0:17:35.000 to the wealth that they generated as a family. But 0:17:35.160 --> 0:17:40.760 since they divorced, Mackenzie Scott has been on quite a 0:17:40.760 --> 0:17:44.120 different track from Jeff Bezos and has been giving away 0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:49.320 a substantial portion of her wealth through no strings attached, 0:17:49.840 --> 0:17:54.960 direct grants to working charities. And that's a big difference 0:17:55.000 --> 0:17:58.320 from the billionaires that you see putting money into their 0:17:58.400 --> 0:18:04.800 own directly or family controlled foundations. Which is really another 0:18:04.840 --> 0:18:08.200 way of holding wealth, and they do trickle that money 0:18:08.200 --> 0:18:12.399 out to other nonprofits and charities, but in the meantime 0:18:12.760 --> 0:18:17.119 they are using their foundations to prop up their reputations 0:18:17.200 --> 0:18:21.040 and their influence and their lifestyles as well. 0:18:21.640 --> 0:18:24.480 Well, that was going to be my question actually about 0:18:24.520 --> 0:18:30.399 how you know, because philanthropic ventures tend to be something 0:18:30.480 --> 0:18:33.240 that only very very rich people do. The rest of 0:18:33.320 --> 0:18:37.000 us call it donations or you know, monthly sign up 0:18:37.040 --> 0:18:39.000 to you know, give to a donotion. 0:18:40.040 --> 0:18:45.520 But in terms of I mean, what do you think defines. 0:18:46.480 --> 0:18:50.760 What is actually philanthropic or what is a money making 0:18:50.880 --> 0:18:55.680 venture or a public PPR move Basically, I mean, I'm, 0:18:55.720 --> 0:18:58.439 for one, I'm skeptical of whenever I see a massive 0:18:58.480 --> 0:19:00.360 one of those novelty checks. 0:19:02.640 --> 0:19:06.639 Well, I work for ox Van, which is one of 0:19:06.680 --> 0:19:10.800 the non profits who benefit from philanthropic donations, and we're 0:19:10.800 --> 0:19:15.959 certainly grateful to everyone who gives, whether that's a small 0:19:16.200 --> 0:19:19.879 regular donation which is most of our income, up to 0:19:20.400 --> 0:19:23.639 those wealthy individuals and families who have done well and 0:19:23.680 --> 0:19:30.080 want to give something back. The criticism that I was 0:19:30.160 --> 0:19:34.400 making earlier of the typical billionaire style is very different 0:19:34.760 --> 0:19:41.639 to any of that it's establishing one's own private you know, 0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:47.440 closely held foundations to concentrate wealth and call it charity. 0:19:47.840 --> 0:19:51.000 And I'm referencing there really a recent report by the 0:19:51.040 --> 0:19:53.920 Institute of Policy Studies in the US that looked at 0:19:54.560 --> 0:19:59.600 the Giving Pledge, which was a philanthropic initiative in two 0:19:59.600 --> 0:20:03.119 thousand ten by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and others 0:20:03.160 --> 0:20:06.040 where they pledged to give away the majority of their 0:20:06.040 --> 0:20:10.680 wealth during their lifetimes or by the time of their death. 0:20:11.400 --> 0:20:16.040 And looking at that, criticism of the closely held foundation 0:20:16.320 --> 0:20:19.760 is one of the main ones of that report. The 0:20:19.800 --> 0:20:22.120 story of Chuck Feenie I also got from that report, 0:20:22.200 --> 0:20:26.960 and the criticism being that no other billionaire, with the 0:20:26.960 --> 0:20:30.399 exception perhaps of Mackenzie Scott and others who seemed to 0:20:30.440 --> 0:20:34.000 be on that track, no other billionaire is making that 0:20:34.160 --> 0:20:38.080 commitment to no longer be a billionaire. And they even 0:20:38.160 --> 0:20:43.679 looked at the twenty two pledgers who had died since 0:20:43.920 --> 0:20:47.080 twenty ten and found that only eight of those had 0:20:47.160 --> 0:20:52.199 fulfilled their pledge to give away the majority of their wealth. 0:20:52.760 --> 0:20:56.560 And of course, for many billionaires giving the majority of 0:20:56.560 --> 0:21:02.080 their wealth, they would still be billionaires. There are recommendations 0:21:02.720 --> 0:21:07.960 in the report, including that the tax system be revised 0:21:08.160 --> 0:21:15.520 to capture more effectively the public share of this large 0:21:15.520 --> 0:21:20.240 accumulated wealth, including to look again at the tax exemptions 0:21:20.280 --> 0:21:25.280 that are given for these privately held foundations. And then 0:21:25.280 --> 0:21:28.160 there are recommendations for billionaires who do want to fulfill 0:21:28.640 --> 0:21:32.040 their pledge, who do want to try to be an 0:21:32.080 --> 0:21:37.320 ethical billionaire. But from Oxfad, I think we would put 0:21:37.520 --> 0:21:44.119 the emphasis on the tax system, on the democratic ways 0:21:44.119 --> 0:21:47.920 in which we need to reign in excessive wealth and 0:21:48.359 --> 0:21:52.680 really take back the public share that we have all 0:21:52.720 --> 0:21:56.480 contributed to this wealth, you know, through our work, through 0:21:56.520 --> 0:22:01.840 our work not just working for billionaires, but working all 0:22:01.920 --> 0:22:07.119 their corporations, but working to maintain the economy and the 0:22:07.160 --> 0:22:13.440 infrastructure that allows them to generate wealth. And it's great 0:22:13.480 --> 0:22:17.160 that wealth is being generated, but let's share it more 0:22:17.560 --> 0:22:21.359 fairly among everyone who contributes to it. And really that's 0:22:21.640 --> 0:22:25.920 all of us. So billionaires can be billionaires, I suppose, 0:22:26.080 --> 0:22:32.359 but we should all be benefiting from the accumulation of wealth. 0:22:32.400 --> 0:22:36.040 The society gets richer, we should be seeing those benefits 0:22:36.040 --> 0:22:38.159 spread more evenly as well. 0:22:38.200 --> 0:22:41.440 Thanks for joining us, Nick, Thanks thanks for having me. 0:22:43.960 --> 0:22:47.199 That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You 0:22:47.240 --> 0:22:51.120 can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage 0:22:51.160 --> 0:22:55.240 at enzadherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is 0:22:55.320 --> 0:22:58.720 produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also 0:22:58.920 --> 0:23:03.399 our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page 0:23:03.440 --> 0:23:07.080 on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune 0:23:07.080 --> 0:23:10.120 in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.