Right, we all want nice things. But the nice things that the ultra-rich desire are almost garish in their tone-deafness. Spending an extra $10 on a meal is a re

Right, we all want nice things. But the nice things that the ultra-rich desire are almost garish in their tone-deafness. Spending an extra $10 on a meal is a relatively accessible luxury, that perhaps 90% of the population can imagine doing every so often. Accessible luxury is almost therapeutic, though, as it gives transient relief to an otherwise overburdened class in society. I cannot imagine what end the luxuries of the ultra-rich serve, save for the ego. In my opinion, the moral valence of luxuries depends on the practicality of that luxury spending in the grander scheme of the person's life, as well as the cost of that luxury. Most people don't spend a meaningful amount of money on luxuries for that opportunity cost to be significant. And yeah, ideally charities would not need to exist. I also believe that government could become a lot more efficient. I think a luxury tax is a good solution, provided that those funds are put to good work. The nature of these ultra-rich toys can make them hard to tax, though. If America wants to levy a tax, I can just buy it the next time I'm in Geneva.