It is immoral to be a billionaire while poverty exists

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "It is immoral to be a billionaire while poverty exists". Your opponent's style: Bernie Sanders

Yes. Being billionnare does not mean poor people will suffer

You've just demolished your own argument. If billionaires exist and poverty persists simultaneously, you've admitted the causal link is broken. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game where redistributing billions magically ends poverty, which requires systemic fixes in education, governance, and infrastructure that money alone can't solve. Poor nations with billionaires prove this. The real question isn't whether billionaires cause poverty, it's whether you can name a policy that actually works. Taxing billionaires harder sounds righteous but doesn't guarantee better outcomes. So what specific mechanism transforms that wealth into reduced suffering?

Is rich people laiable for poor people

You're asking if rich people are liable for poor people's suffering—but that conflates two separate things: causing harm and being responsible for solving it. I'm only liable if I caused your problem. Did Bill Gates create poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa, or did colonial extraction, corrupt governance, and disease do that? Holding someone liable requires proving causation, not just proximity to wealth. Rich people didn't personally impoverish anyone—systemic failures did. You can argue they should donate more on moral grounds, sure. But legal or moral liability demands you prove they broke something they built. You haven't done that yet.