Those people in the production chain of her media, who suffer due to their poor economical status.

Or at least I'd consider it to have more priority, than J.K Rowling amassing few more millions herself.

I wouldn't have such big issue with Billionaires, if there weren't so much suffering from the exploited population.

While Rowling provided the creative input to her stories, they were:

- Edited by other people - Printed by other people - (Films were) directed by other people - Characters in the films were played by other people - Distributed by other people

If there was no J.K. Rowling, we (admittedly) wouldn't have the stories. But the same is true of all of the other moving parts in the media business.

No-one is self-made.

I'm defending her ownership of capital, not her spending. I may disagree with my government spending money bombing Muslims that disagree with it, but I recognize it's right to collect trillions of dollars in taxes.

Others would say she's funding groups to protect girls and women against abuse.

Let her control it til the end of the tax year, and then let her help fund the system that made her fabulously wealthy.

The government is made up of people who make mistakes even if they have the best of intentions. It doesn't make sense for a bureaucrat to have more control of the wealth than the person who created that wealth purely from her imagination.

A government that makes some "mistakes" is far better than the alternative. Just ask the town a bunch of libertarians took over. [0]

0: https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...

I'm saying that it's reasonable to expect a significant fraction of the wealth that you created, which is true in every developed country. I'm not advocating for libertarianism.

So do you really believe any single person is so "brilliant" (or whatever adjective you want to use) to have truly created or earned billions of dollars through their own brilliance alone? Do you think Jeff Bezos is 1,310,000x more deserving of his wealth than the average American household?

IMO it's not reasonable at all past a certain point to continue to amass this kind of wealth that is a by-product of a broken system driven by exploitation, a system in this stage clearly set up for the rich to get richer while those struggling remain stagnant at best.

It's not about brilliance. Technology and organization allow your impact to scale to superhuman levels. I used the JK Rowling example because it's obvious that without her, we would not have the multi-billion dollar franchise that is Harry Potter. Without Harry Potter, there is no guarantee that another franchise would have taken it's place.

It's also not a stretch to suggest that Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates have created over 100 times more value than Rowling. Their roles are more nebulous, but they certainly did something better than their competitors. Microsoft Excel alone possibly has possibly saved trillions of hours productivity.

Who agrees that, after the first few million copies?

Under the original US Constitution, Harry Potter would be public domain by now.