Is it immoral to make a certain amount or have a certain amount of wealth?

[HughBeaumont]

40. No, but let's not assume they're doing anything with that wealth except lining their own coffers.

There's no Carnegie-benevolence among today's wealthy (and the turn-of-the-century Robber Barons were only generous because of legacy, not because they had any hot desire to part with even one red cent of their wealth):

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2007/03/18useconomics-easterbrook

Now subtract Buffett and his generous gift from the group, and the rest of them begin to look downright miserly, handing to others a mere $7 billion of a combined net worth of $584 billion—or just over 1%. Numbers from the philanthropy watch organization Giving USA show that Americans as a whole annually give away about 0.5% of their net worth. So, except for Buffett, society's top givers donate to others at only a tad higher rate than the population as a whole. That's, well, pathetic. And that's just counting top givers, not the super-rich who give away little or nothing.

Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, net worth $16 billion, gave away $53 million in 2006, according to Slate—one-third of 1% of his fortune. Software magnate Lawrence Ellison, net worth $20 billion, gave away $100 million—half of 1%. Pierre Omidyar, founder of EBay, net worth $7.7 billion, gave away $67 million—less than 1%. Nike tycoon Philip Knight, net worth $7.9 billion, gave away $105 million—slightly more than 1%.

Donations of this sort, in the multimillion-dollar range, inevitably mean a lot to charities or schools, and of course it is certainly preferable that the super-rich give millions rather than nothing at all. But for those whose net worth soars into the billions, even $100 million is a pittance compared with what they have the means to give. Financier George Soros, net worth $8.5 billion, in 2006 gave away $60 million, which sounds like a lot until you reflect that it is less than 1%. Soros rails against the inequities of capitalism. Yet when it comes to his own disproportionate stash, that's another story.

snip

Carroll speculates that the super-rich won't give away money they know they will never use for two reasons: because they love money, and because extreme wealth confers power. We know already that people who give their lives over to loving money surrender their humanity in the process. As for clout, Carroll quotes Howard Hughes: "Money is the measuring rod of power." That $53 billion ensures Gates will be treated with awe wherever he goes. If he gave away 78% of his wealth like Carnegie did, he might be universally admired, but he would no longer be treated with the same degree of fawning reverence. He might even, someday, find himself in the same room with someone who has more money!

Of course, a few here would probably like the later part of the article, when the author says it would be unwise to "legislate away extreme wealth entirely" on the reasoning that the rich do "So many GOOD things" for the rest of us plebes.

He also laughably (and quite incorrectly) states that "Middle-class income is today the highest it has ever been. Living standards are too. Longevity, healthcare quality and education levels are all at historic highs."

But hey, I guess this is what happens when I go to a conservative-leaning site for sources. And to be fair, this article WAS written in 2007 . . . . before that . . . bad thing in . . . 2008 happened . . .