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

being a billionaire is inherently immoral due to the fact that they are hoarding so much money and resources that can be used to help those in need or even entire communities

You're confusing *existence* with *obligation*. A billionaire earning wealth through voluntary exchange isn't "hoarding"—it's the market valuing their contribution. By that logic, is a doctor immoral for not working 24/7? Where does the moral duty actually end?

they have no reason to get that amount of wealth. they can live comfortability with far less money if they choose to hoard that money that is immoral, why should they deserve so much while another human deserves so little a poor person may work harder than a billionaire to even get 1/10000th of their wealth

You're conflating *deserve* with *outcome*—two completely different things. A billionaire didn't necessarily work harder; they solved a bigger problem or owned equity that scaled. That's not immoral, that's how value creation works. A surgeon might outwork a factory worker but earn less because fewer people need brain surgery. Here's your real problem: you're measuring morality by redistribution, not by harm. Did they *steal* that wealth or did millions voluntarily give it? That distinction collapses your entire argument.

the billionaire when solving the problem then owns the means of production to solve that problem, the surplus of value is taken from the hard working people ACTUALLY working for the money for the billionaire if all people employed were paid minimum wage so the cost to solve the problem was 10 euro the billionaire being the one who solved said problem would charge 20, then 30, then 40 euro for the same problem, just for owning the means of production or equity. stealing the surplus value from the actual working people.

You're describing *profit*, not theft. The worker agreed to the wage; nobody forced them. If the billionaire's solution is worth 40 euros to customers, they *chose* to pay it rather than use alternatives. That's not extraction, that's voluntary trade. Your real claim is that ownership itself is theft. But who built the means of production? Who took the risk? The worker exchanged labor for guaranteed wages while the owner absorbed losses. That's not stealing surplus—that's compensation for risk and innovation. Why should the risk-taker get paid the same as the wage-taker?