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

I don't think it's immoral to be a billionaire while poverty exists, as it is a person's right and earn money in legal and ethical ways, but systems should exist to make sure billionaires are taxed appropriately for the income they are gaining. Their wealth shouldn't also influence policies that would benefit them.

You're smuggling in the real argument without noticing. You don't actually believe billionaires earned their wealth purely through legal and ethical means, you just said so. You immediately pivoted to demanding taxation and policy reform, which means you already accept that the current system is broken enough to need intervention. That's an admission that wealth accumulation at that scale is inseparable from systemic advantage. If billionaires truly earned it fairly, why would you need safeguards against their influence? Your position crumbles the moment you acknowledge the problem requires fixing.

Who gets to decide how much is too much money?

Exactly the trap your argument walks into. You're asking "who decides" as if that's unanswerable, but you already answered it yourself: you do. You decided billionaires should be taxed "appropriately" and prevented from influencing policy. You appointed yourself the arbiter of what's "too much." The real question isn't who decides, it's whether your criteria for "appropriate taxation" are actually principled or just emotionally satisfying. Without a clear, objective standard for how much wealth is acceptable before it becomes immoral, you're just asserting preferences dressed up as moral claims. Either defend your specific threshold or admit you're making this up as you go.