Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Interlagos, 2022

People shouldn’t have billions in the bank while others starve – Hamilton

2023 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Lewis Hamilton says more should be done to share the world’s wealth between those who have the most and those who have the least.

The seven-times world champion, whose personal fortune is estimated at £300 million, described how he had witnessed “heart-breaking” child poverty around the world.

Asked in a podcast for his view on laws he’d like to change, Hamilton said: “One of the things I struggle with every day is, and it’s just how life is and it’s been the way for thousands of years, is there is such a disparity between the wealthy and the poor. When you drive around L.A., there’s still so many people living on the streets.”

“You shouldn’t be able to have billions,” he told interviewer Jay Shetty. “There should be a limit to how much you can have. Because there’s enough to go around to everyone. So somehow creating a law that creates more equality and equal access for everyone. I don’t know how you would implement that law.”

The Mercedes driver said his encounters with poverty around the world had an impact on him. “I’ve met kids that are starving,” he said. “And you think how we are so, so lucky, so many of us. And knowing that and taking advantage of your every day is so, so important.”

Hamilton’s wealth puts him among the top motor racing earners. However he is well short of the estimated £2.49 billion fortune of former F1 owner Bernie Ecclestone, one of 177 billionaires resident in the UK. The seven-times world champion admitted he finds it challenging to decide which initiatives deserve most attention.

“There are so many causes,” he said. “There’s so many problems out there and so many amazing causes. And there’s only one of you, so where do you put the focus?

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“It took a long, long time to really find what that was for me. I think for me, education was something that I felt extremely passionate about because I’d been out to India, I’d been out into some of the really poorest places like Manilla and seeing young kids who are like us but begging for food and not having the same opportunities. And for me, that was that broke my heart and [I] realised how privileged we are and how fortunate we are.

“I want to be working with people out there that are trying to create more. There’s over a hundred million kids that don’t have access to education, so how can I get involved in that? So align yourself with people that do.”

Hamilton was ranked fifth last year on The Sunday Times Giving List, the highest sportsperson named. He launched a charitable foundation, Mission 44, to promote education of young people and tackle inequality.

“I was winning and it was giving me that tip of happiness,” he explained. “But then I would kind of drop back down to normality and there was something missing.

“And it was that purpose really, understanding what that purpose is and understanding why you’ve been put here, why you’ve been given the platform that you’ve that you’ve been given. Why we’re the only people of colour this whole time through it all.

“When I started speaking about diversity, people were like ‘oh, you want to get more people of colour in as racing drivers?’ There’s only 20 of us, so I was like, no, if there’s 40,000, 50,000 jobs, there’s thousands of engineering jobs in the background and there’s such a lack of diversity coming through. I want to be a part of shifting that narrative and shifting that conversation and having people be questioning themselves and have those difficult conversations with people.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2023 F1 season

Browse all 2023 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

104 comments on “People shouldn’t have billions in the bank while others starve – Hamilton”

  1. Feel free to give your entire networth away to charity. Lead by example please.

    1. I think he said billions, not millions. I think it’s ok that people become millionaires. But I don’t see the need to be billionaire. You’re not buying a better life with that money. That only serves power.

      1. A million pound – just one – is what an average full-time employee in the UK makes in 28 years.

        It is still an incredible amount of money. And these guys get that, what… every week?

        1. Yes, it’s insane. To help put it into perspective. There is a Million seconds in 2 weeks. There is a Billion seconds in 33 years!

      2. Andre, Hamilton is a gazzilioner to most people in the world. His wealth puts him in a godly realm of comfort, safety and freedom most can’t even dream about. He has much more than an abundance of money that serves no purpose other than excercising vanity. Millioner, billioner is the same thing in this context.

      3. Maybe one cant say Hamilton’s bank account reached 10digits.
        But have you noticed that he comes into the headlines not when he buys a nice car, but when he is involved in purchasing a football franchise or other endeavour limited to centimillionaires?

    2. Absolutely agree. Put your money where your mouth is, Hamilton.
      He could part with 290 million and struggle along on the interest 10 million would generate.
      Of course he wouldn’t be able to jet-set around the world to as many parties and fashion shows every year, but there would always be satisfaction in the sacrifice.

      1. He actually would be able to still jet around to those parties. Those are all invitations with everything paid for and most of those events would happily pay to charter a jet for him to attend. I worked at a Hollywood management agency for two years with pretty C list celebrities (e.g., Julia Ormond and Stuart Townsend) and the amount of free stuff they were sent + all the expenses paid invitations to events was staggering.

    3. Who does he give it to?

    4. Y not be what you want, be rich and be spend

    5. Lewis was the fifth most giving person in the UK last year. That was proportionate to his wealth. If you bothered to find out he has funded the Hamilton Commission, Mission 44 & jointly funds Ignite with Mercedes. What are the other 19 doing?

  2. Problem is that profit has become more important than well-being. The elites see themselves as a class apart, deserving of their economic success, while the poor deserve their fate for being “untermensch”. That’s their worldview. So they have zero remorse about their ridiculous wealth, and zero sympathy for suffering human beings.

  3. I don’t know the phrase, but this is beyond hypocrite.

    1. @ruliemaulana Did you notice this reference?

      Hamilton was ranked fifth last year on The Sunday Times Giving List, the highest sportsperson named.

      LH is putting his money where his mouth is, and trying to make a difference. Where is the hypocrisy? That’s a genuine question.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        23rd January 2023, 18:06

        The hypocrisy is that whilst he’s giving a decent bit of money to good causes, he’s still got a ridiculous amount of money in the bank.

        I wouldn’t personally criticise him for it – he’s given a lot and he doesn’t have to give anything but his comments are guaranteed to bring criticism when he’s living a life of extreme luxury whilst others can’t afford to heat their homes for the winter.

        1. In fairness he was in the Jay Shetty Podcast and he was asked about this I mean had he said the opposite people would have lose their mind

    2. @petebaldwin @ruliemaulana So the rule is: You are NOT a hypocrite if you are rich and selfish, care nothing for others, but just keep it or spend it on yourself. BUT if you DO possess empathy and actually act to help others, that makes you a hypocrite.
      Just curious, what could/should he have done/said that would be good? I cannot imagine what that could be.

      1. Lol yep, typical conservative nonsense. You see it at all the time on the whole ‘Hamilton and Vettel are climate hypocrites’ thing too.

        “How dare one try a bit and do a little. Only people who brazenly don’t care like me are good and decent.”

      2. The more someone tries to be moral the more chance they end up being a hypocrite. Personally, I would much prefer to try and live ethically and sometimes be a hypocrite than make no effort morally and avoid hypocrisy.

        As for what he could do, make a donation to the UK government for all the dodged taxes and then keep donating a portion of his income to good causes.

        1. The more someone tries to be moral the more chance they end up being a hypocrite.

          Not necessarily.
          The thing with Hamilton is that he could do (and give) a lot more, could voluntarily accept a greatly reduced income, could live a much more modest and conservative lifestyle and could be more honest and generous with his tax dealings to ultimately benefit the young and disadvantaged people of his own country.
          But he chooses not to do any of those things to the extent that he could.

          Which is exactly why so many use the term ‘hypocrite.’

          1. How would Hamilton (Or anyone else for that matter) ‘accepting a greatly reduced income’ help anyone who is starving or unable to find a home? All that would happen is that the big corporates would keep the extra or pay it to shareholders who already have money!
            Surely better for individuals like Hamilton to accept the pay and then choose to do something worthwhile with at least a portion of that money.

          2. How would Hamilton (Or anyone else for that matter) ‘accepting a greatly reduced income’ help anyone

            Note that one of the main themes here is the appearance of hypocrisy, which that part of my comment addresses….
            Being exceptionally highly paid, primarily by negotiating it himself, is somewhat of a double standard for someone making the argument Hamilton is making.

            Surely better for individuals like Hamilton to accept the pay and then choose to do something worthwhile with at least a portion of that money.

            Surely better for the vast majority of that money to be set aside for people, organisations and causes which actually need it more? (ie, through tax)

        2. It is about being moral with other people’s money.

      3. Huge difference between what you’re describing and calling out a class he belongs (beside high digit billionaires) to. If he’s had decent investment performance during his career, he could easily have a net worth of more than one billion USD.

        As many have mentioned, he could donate 90% of his net worth and still live at level of luxury few of us understand let alone dare to dream of.

        So, fight the good fight Lewis, but choose your words more carefully when it comes to things like “the ultra wealthy should not be allowed to have x while many have z.” It’s a sentiment I agree, but it rings quite hollow coming from him. Maybe lobby for tax reform. Once upon a time the US taxed any income past a certain threshold at 90%+. Now it’s 36% with endless loopholes.

    3. @ruliemaulana Does that judgement also apply to all the others in that list? If not, why not?

    4. To hear this from a millionaire sportsman itself is a Blessing and i am sure he is a generous person. Very rarely you get sportsmen who are concerned about the lowly and hunger in the world. May this be a beginning for others.

  4. F1 drivers are notorious tax-dodgers. Taxes that in most Western countries mostly go to social programs, healthcare, and whose benefits, relatively speaking, do most for people with less material wealth through public libraries, public transportation, public education, even housing, daycare and child support.

    Then there are rare guys like Pérez, who not only lives in Mexico but also runs the Pérez Foundation that spends large sums on helping children in all kinds of unfortunate situations.

  5. where do i send my account! pleae let me know..

    i used to love LH and SV.. damn.. whatever has happened to them!
    suddenly i want kimi back

  6. SirLewieLewie moved to Monaco for the simple reason: to pay a lot less taxes on every £ he makes than he would have in the UK. Sure, he started a charity foundation or two for a good cause or two. But how much of his own tax dodged £ did he put in the foundation?
    He talks a good game but talk is cheap, especially for a guy with tens of tax dodged millions in his bank accounts.

  7. Privileged man talk.
    His money is worth billions in many places around the world. Will he truly share his wealth instead of giving crumbles of his abundance and go pursue the ascetic dream? No.
    Can’t trend with that.

    1. 2 points. What do homeless people in LA do when they have 10 dollars? Get more meth!

      Money is created all the time. There’s 137 trillion dollars in the world. That wasnt always the case. It keeps growing. Money is created daily. If I have 10 dollars in the bank, it doesnt mean a poor person in Bangledesh is wondering where his 10 dollar bill went. One person having doesn’t mean another is missing. But if you are rich please be generous with your time and also help those who may need money to get on their feet.

  8. As they say, a man who dies wealthy dies in disgrace.

  9. Meh. I don’t mind people having billions, as long as they pay reasonable taxes.

    The problem is, most billionaires don’t pay taxes, because they have no salaries, and they lobby very hard to not pay a percentage of their net worth.

    1. @grat: good mention!

      I was worried the comment section would look like half attacking him being a hypocrite and the other half defending him because he donated a nice sum…

      But the thruth is: reducing the income/wealth disparity should not mention donations. That way you’re degrading poor people to rich peoples hobbies. There are plenty of debaters who address this point. Taxes taxes taxes and the rest is bs.

      1. Ah, but the underlying problem with taxes is that governments are so incredibly wasteful. On the other hand, taxing net worth is also fraught. Most of the mega rich have their wealth tied up in shares, so assessing the value on a given day is prone to manipulation, lend a lot of shares to a short seller the day before, have the share value drop like stone for the assessment day, then buy them back a day later. Then there is the E.Musk trick, no pay, share handout, borrow cash from banks at low rates backed by shares, sell enough shares at peak prices to repay loans then borrow more. No assets, only debts.

      2. In many ways I agree. Charities are often just privatising what should be done by governments, and making payment of the taxes which would provide those services optional. Why should it require a charity to provide emergency air abundances, mountain rescue, lifeboats, medical services, etc? These should be essential services provided to all by the government, funded by general taxation.

        Charitable status is also often abused. For instance, many private schools are charities, which allows both them and their student’s parents to avoid paying tax.

        This is especially true when poorer people generally donate more, as a percentage of their disposable income, than those who are better off.

        The thing is, were I rich I’d probably do the same as the rest of them, and I think most people would. If you have the option of legally avoiding taxes, I’m pretty sure most people would take it.

        1. 100% agree, was looking for this comment 👍

        2. Charities are often just privatising what should be done by governments…

          I disagree here. Governments take your money at the point of a gun and you don’t really have a choice of where the money goes. With charities you DO have a choice—to give or not. Also, charities are typically more efficient than government in getting the money to the intended target.

          1. Also, charities are typically more efficient than government in getting the money to the intended target.

            Tell me you’ve never worked for a charity without saying you’ve never worked for a charity.

          2. It’s true to a large extent, @red-andy.
            I work directly with multiple charities – and have also worked in multiple government departments.
            The charities win on efficiency every single time.

            Of course – every charitable organisation is unique, as are the people who run them.
            Governments, however, tend to be extremely similar no matter who is involved.

          3. Governments don’t take taxmoney at gunpoint. However, unlike clubs and other private organisations, a state can’t kick someone who doesn’t contribute out. Making people stateless is a big no-no in the current political order. Hence fines.

            People who don’t want any sort of government can always move to lawless northern Mexico or other such unfortunate places, yet tellingly they never do.

          4. With charities you DO have a choice

            That’s the point: for essential services, there shouldn’t be a choice, and many of the things currently covered by charities are essential services.

            Depending on the good will of the general public to provide life saving services (air ambulance, mountain rescue, lifeboats, etc) is not acceptable. These services should be available to all, and people shouldn’t be allowed to opt out of funding them. They are as critical as police, ambulances, fire services and health services.

            When people donate to charities, they get a choice of which charities they donate to. This is fine for non-essential services, but why should anyone be allowed to choose not to fund the essential, life-saving services which any of us may need some day?

            Making something essential like that charity funded isn’t about allowing people the choice, it is about allowing people to opt out of funding something while still having access to the benefits it brings. Someone who has never donated to the air ambulance or lifeboats, even when they can readily afford it, will receive exactly the same treatment from them as someone who has. A millionaire in a car crash or boating accident who has never donated a penny to either will still be rescued by them.

        3. These should be essential services provided to all by the government, funded by general taxation.

          Perhaps if the most wealthy people weren’t tax dodging all the time, governments would have more money to spend on those charitable services – therefore reducing the need for private participation.
          Perhaps if governments weren’t also complicit in this corruption, everyone everywhere would be better off.

          Charities aren’t taking away anything from the governments – they are making up for them.
          Added to that, charity (generally) is a far less abused system than government is.

          The thing is, were I rich I’d probably do the same as the rest of them, and I think most people would.

          Then you, and those others you speak of, are a scourge and an enemy of an equal, fair and healthy society for everyone.
          You probably don’t give to charity either.

          1. If a government is corrupt or incompetent then it is easy for charities to abuse the system.

          2. If a government is corrupt or incompetent then

            everyone can abuse the system.

            But not everyone will.

          3. Way to make assumptions there. Not that it’s any of your business, but I do donate a significant amount of my disposable income to charity. In many cases, though, it angers me that I have to, because they are providing services I believe are essential and should be provided by the government.

            Few people pay more tax than they have to. I don’t see many people, for instance, refusing to pay into a pension and taking the tax benefits of that, and instead paying the tax and putting that money in a bank account. Most feel they’re a better judge of how to spend the money they have than the government. The better off just have more options open to them to legally avoid paying tax, and few will pass up those opportunities (to a point).

            I would very much support closing the loophole exploited by the rich. But while ever they are left open they will be used, and who can really blame them? The government could fairly easily close the loopholes, so if they don’t, then there is a tacit approval to use them. Not using them is akin to just giving the government money they never asked for.

          4. and who can really blame them

            Anyone with a stronger sense of morality and what is right for a functioning society.

            It’s funny that you are arguing for one thing, and yet also that doing the opposite is acceptable simply because the option is available.
            Governments will always be corrupt – but the more money they have, the more they will use for good.

      3. I agree 100%. In fact, the data shows that financial aid from wealthy countries to third world countries primarily actually results in economic stagnation. Something that DOES work extremely well though is micro loans. It helps spur growth at the most important place: the base of the wealth pyramid while one can guess what happens to most of the money delivered to the state apparatuses running these countries. Let’s just say it works as well as the “trickle down” economic theory.

  10. Yeah, let’s make everyone happy. I started watching F1 since i was ten and even then i quickly understood that f1 drivers are kinda ignoramus because many of them can openly admit they hardly read any books. So when they talk about the ways to make the world a better place i just can’t take it seriously. Just… drive.

  11. I like Hamilton’s activism, I like the way he gives a portion of his money to charity, but his stance is difficult to match up with the tax dodging.

    Some people have signed up to give 90% of their wealth to charity. I think Hamilton needs give a bit more given tax dodging.

    1. Pretty sure he’s quite high on the UK tax payers list as he doesn’t actively seek to avoid taxes like many others have because he knows how vital it is for the richest to contribute.

      1. I am pretty sure there was a time period in the past when he lived in Monoco or Switzerland and avoided UK tax. If he has changed his ways then fair play to him.

        1. No no… his move to Switzerland (2007) was purely to “avoid excessive public and media attention” and nothing to do with avoiding any tax. The subsequent move to Monaco (2011) was purely because he wanted a “livelier lifestyle” than in Zurich. The revised tax laws whereby the Swiss authorities started to share information with the UK in order to get previously unobtainable tax were purely coincidental.
          Monaco has no personal income tax, capital gain or inheritance taxes. But then most UK F1 drivers, even going back to the old stalwarts like Stewart (Switzerland), Nigel Mansell (Isle of Man), Damon Hill (Dublin) or Jenson Button (Channel Islands & Monaco) have been doing the same thing for years.

          1. Well, well outline.

            BTW, lol@how the introduction of FACTA lead to so much tax avoidance money leaving Switzerland. The ultimate irony is that the US strong armed FACTA on most of the world’s countries, but no one seemed to notice that the US was exempt from the very rules it established. Subsequently, a massive percentage of that money formerly banked in Switzerland was moved to a handful of American states that specialize in catering to ultra tax-avoidance trust structures.

            A tragic comedy.

        2. He does live in Monaco but then again so would I, if I could afford it. He does however still pay a huge amount in taxes, far more than some billion pound companies I would add despite the fact he could probably easily dodge a lot of it if he wanted.

    2. It is worth noting that, if Hamilton’s tax affairs remained unresolved, there’s no way he would have been given a knighthood. I think we can infer from his recent honour that his past tax avoidance has been sorted out.

  12. The hypocrite. It’s easy for him to spend a couple of millions on good causes. He has enough left. Spare me this propaganda nonsense.

    Next week: “Hamilton is a better driver than XYZ because he is a better human because he gives more money away.”

    1. Just a small note from history…
      After Ayrton Senna’s death, it was discovered that he had donated an estimated $400 million of his personal fortune to children’s charities, a fact that during his life he had kept secret.

      1. You think Lewis would be able to keep from gushing about all the “amazing” work he was doing? Senna was intensely private while Lewis wants to be a household A-Lister in America. I salute Lewis for any charitable efforts, but this particular topic shows just how tone deaf he can be. It makes me question his judgment.

  13. Does he realize any of his outfits are worth more than what an average worker earns in a full year?

    1. Coventry Climax
      23rd January 2023, 19:07

      His outfits aren’t worth it, he was just willing and able to spend that kind of money on them.

      1. Do you mean paid to wear them as an Instagram influencer?

  14. Hamilton agrees for a 2 year contract extension with Mercedes in exchange for Mercedes ti feed 100 million starving people.

  15. So much venom and bile in the comments above – what a nasty group of sad individuals you are

    1. Are they sad for calling out a hypocrite millionaire? I don’t agree with that.

    2. I’m not surprised at all by many of these venomous comments, expressed by many on this site. It’s something that Lewis had to deal with, when he first entered the sport.

      1. Don’t play the racist or poor roots card in his defense in this case. It has nothing to do with that.

        His statement is just hypocrisy in the eyes of many.

        1. Maybe if thats the first card you jumped on him meaning it says more about you. One thinks the lady doth protest too much.

          1. Maybe I am simply honest. Give me 3 million and I’ll keep it. With 300… I might consider some good cause.

            And would I give it to some good cause I wouldn’t be on television in my designer dress showing off what a good man I am. Cause I’m not.

            At least I’m not a hypocrite.

    3. What irony you personally insult half the commenters and then disappear to avoid having to prove said insult had any merit . Almost reminds me of a billionaire insulting their billionaire friends for not tipping enough and then leaving without leaving an additional tip…

  16. He’s not wrong and it is hard to think of a solution. I find it interesting how much disparity there is effectively due to commercialisation. We have non essential roles like sports people and actors earning millions while absolute essential workers like nurses and teachers earn very little by comparison.

    1. Whether countries have purposefully created tax havens for individuals or businesses (like the UK, Ireland, France – at whose whims Monaco can pretend to be a country, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) or tolerate significant black market and off the books sub-economies (like Spain, Italy, Greece), it’s largely a political choice to allow these kind of tax dodging schemes to continue.

    2. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
      24th January 2023, 13:11

      For public and civil servants to receive higher wages requires higher taxation keeping everything else and not reducing money elsewhere.

      Many claim they would happily pay more but the reality is seen at the polling stations.

      1. Exactly, it’s the same conundrum the environment faces. We could drastically reduce emissions and restore ecosystems tomorrow with our knowledge and technology but no one wants to/can pay for it.

  17. This is why Islam ordered the payment of Zakat, you pay 2.5% of what you own, this way, there is no cheating, you own 100 billion, you pay 2.5 billion, no poverty should be left with such a rule.

    1. And yet eastern countries are some of the poorest… From what i hav observed on the news.. And documentaries. Unfortunately all these rules and taxes are determined by those with power, money and influence. We will always have the very poor and the very rich. Because which rich person will actually give away all their wealth. Or better which person in their right mind will gove away their life of luxury and security?

    2. You underestimate the magnitude of World poverty.

  18. The problem is not the money. It’s the humans themselves. You give x amount of money to person A who has nothing. It’s not 100% the money will go for his well being. He has lived his whole life in a misery. Just like that he can now buy things. He has two options. Spend the money on slums or move to the wealthier side of the city. He needs more than money to get himself to the good side of the life.
    Money can give people happiness but what is happiness for a people who hasn’t tasted that for whole of his life.
    People buy stupid things when they have enough money and not so many use it on good.

  19. This is why Islam ordered the payment of Zakat, you pay 2.5% of what you own, this way, there is no cheating, you own 100 billion, you pay 2.5 billion, no poverty should be left with such a rule.

    You have to wonder how anyone starves in an Islamic country with that in place

  20. “disparity between the wealthy and the poor. When you drive around L.A., there’s still so many people living on the streets.””

    That’s mostly sociability issues. No wonder he has to pay others to tell him things. Perhaps someone else could point out how even that money is frittering away.

  21. Cut to a shot of Verstappen, sat at home on his sofa playing with his testicles.

    1. At least Verstappen is honest about his intensions, here to race.

  22. Kudos to Lewis Hamilton. At least he is conscious to the misery in our world. At least he steps up and gives money to good causes. He doesn’t have to do this. How anybody can criticize him is beyond me.

    1. Possibly due to his combination of naivety and ‘let them eat cake’ blindness.

    2. But they do. They have been since the day he entered the sport, and always find something to criticise about him. If he speaks out about issues, he should keep politics out of F1. If he speaks just about the teaching, he’s being a PR robot. If he shows emotion, he’s being a cry baby. If he donates to charity, he isn’t doing enough.

      For whatever reason, many will find any reason to criticise Hamilton. He could walk up to one of them, hand them a cheque for a million pounds and a set of VIP tickets to every race, and they’d still find something to complain about.

    3. How anybody can criticize him is beyond me.

      Are you serious? Really?

    4. Robert Cunningham
      24th January 2023, 8:11

      Possibly because the first thing he did when he got money, was to domicile himself in a very low tax country. It’s not as if UK taxes are very high! So giving you money away (which is often a tax decision) rather than just paying the taxes in the country that helped you get where you are, is morally questionable.

  23. ha ha ha ha ha.. catching my breath.. ha ha ha ha. drop the bling, bud!

  24. Shallow and hollow words from a man who have been living in tax heavens as to not support to lowest classes in England, earning large part of his pay from large corporations and governments who have never seen the lowclasses as someone to protect, but only someone to steal from.
    Be the change you want and at least he is starting somewhere. I am afraid education doesn’t put food on the table for those in Manila, instead sitting on the schoolbench will minimise their time for acquiring their daily ration of food. Not saying education isn’t a good think, but it needs to be supported by securing more basic needs, like food and money for coming to school. Instead of education give them fundation.

  25. Lewis is correct.
    While I don’t begrudge him receiving and accepting a salary of several millions of pounds, and he does donate money to causes he cares about. I do hold it against him (and other drivers who do the same) for tax avoidance.

    “Create a law that stops people having too much money”. You mean like some form of taxation which you have tried to avoid paying for the best part of 15 years.

    The man has no self awareness.

    1. Far and away the most succinct and easily understandable comment illustrating the mind boggling obliviousness and hypocrisy of the statement.

  26. Hamilton being hypocritical again. Don’t talk about it do it. Distinguishing between a billionaire and a multiple millionaire, as Hamilton is himself, is nonsensical.

  27. Global rates of of extreme poverty were declining until recently and this miraculous human achievement was halted was due to polices where ‘health’ was put above profit. In addition state sponsored enforced wealth confiscation in the name of equality has a very, let’s say, dodgy history. So while extreme wealth gaps are an issue, their causes are complex and often so-called cures are worse than the disease…. a LOT worse.

  28. Global rates of of extreme poverty were declining until recently and this miraculous human achievement was halted was due to polices where ‘health’ was put above profit.

    Or was it when health systems became increasingly expensive and privatised – to increase profit? That’s what’s happening the world over.

    Don’t blame the (intentionally) poor implementation of a ‘cure’ on the basic concept behind it.
    Decreasing the gap between rich and poor is one of the most fundamental and important keys to success and happiness in any society. Unsurprisingly, the worst places feature the largest gap.

    1. The decline in Extreme Poverty has been very consistent and the graph only reversed due to very specific policies that have nothing to do with whether respective health systems are private or public.

      The fundamental point is the world, until very recently, has been doing well reducing Extreme Poverty (i.e lack of actual food). The wealth gaps do cause societal issues (and largely a consequence of the complexity of fiat currency systems and extremely complex financial/tax law), but the general standard of living has been improving for everyone.

      This simplistic talk of wealth (thus land) confiscation, which is what Lewis is referring to here, and implementation of it has been done in the past, and caused some of the worst famines in history, biblical levels of horror.

      1. The fundamental point is the world, until very recently, has been doing well reducing Extreme Poverty

        Another fundamental point is that it would only take a handful of the most wealthy people making a modest regular donation to virtually eradicate the problem for the vast majority of those people.

        If the world’s money were spread much more evenly, many of those people would be able to buy food, or purchase land to produce it on and make a living from.

        1. Wealthy people don’t have money sitting in a bank they can just donate from. Their wealth is largely held in assets and investments. QUite often they take on debt because it’s cheaper. So they would need to sell assets etc… to then ‘donate’. It wouldn’t really solve much either. This overly simplistic view of taking from a and giving to b doesn’t work in the real world, especially ones with the complex currency/financial structures we have.

          And no it wouldn’t solve the problems of a vast number of people either. These kind of policies undermine currencies. If the currency lose it’s status of ‘store of value’, then all hell breaks loose.

          1. These kind of policies undermine currencies.

            Absolute nonsense.
            It would change their current values, without a doubt – but that’s not at all a bad thing.

  29. give it away then, simple. u want my account number?

  30. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
    24th January 2023, 13:26

    Give money to some and the first thing they would buy is drugs! Some would buy a flashy car. Some would go on a luxurious holiday.
    Give some people a safe haven like a house and they spoil it. I have read about immigrants given accommodation and they have smashed it up so it is uninhabitable now.
    Hamilton can’t do right for doing wrong.

    1. Good of you to acknowledge only those who misuse or abuse their assistance.
      Care to mention all the others whose lives are greatly improved as a direct result of receiving that help?
      Just for some balance…..

      1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
        24th January 2023, 15:22

        Money not directly given where a community gets clean water or a school with a teacher is vastly different than just handing out money. There is lots of those good causes that make a vast difference.

        I feel just handing out cash won’t help some and you know that as well.

  31. Jack (@jackisthestig)
    24th January 2023, 21:37

    It’s all very well celebs and sports stars coming out with this sort of thing but they have the luxury of never having their statements challenged. ‘Activists’ without such an existing platform have to argue their case in an adversarial arena, if they stand for election they are at the mercy of voters. To me it just seems like a sort of cheating. He got a very easy ride but I had a lot of respect for Sebastian Vettel for appearing on the panel of Question Time when he could have easily stuck to just preaching to sports reporters and putting messages on his helmet.

Comments are closed.