Cap wealth, for society's health?
Cap wealth, for society's health?
A summary of the arguments from our webinar on 28 March featuring Ingrid Robeyns, author of 'Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth'
The Policy Institute at King’s College London and the Fairness Foundation hosted a webinar on 28 March about the idea of ‘limitarianism’ put forward by the Dutch philosopher and economist Ingrid Robeyns in her book Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth. The proposal, in response to the increasing evidence that extreme wealth is not only unjustifiable but is detrimental to society as a whole, is for an upper limit on the amount of wealth that any one person can accumulate.
Ingrid discussed the problems of extreme wealth and her proposed solution to it with Luke Hildyard, Director of the High Pay Centre and author of Enough: Why It's Time to Abolish the Super-Rich, and Graham Hobson, technologist and member of Patriotic Millionaires UK.
You can watch the full recording below, or read on for a summary of the discussion.
Ingrid:
Argued for the establishment of an upper limit on personal wealth, similar to the poverty line that ensures that nobody falls below a certain income level.
Presented data on wealth distribution in Europe, highlighting the concentration of wealth at the top. She emphasised the staggering difference between the wealthiest individuals and the rest of the population.
Discussed the enormous fortunes of billionaires, using examples like Bernard Arnault and Elon Musk to illustrate the difficulty in comprehending such vast wealth.
Outlined six reasons for limiting wealth inequality: the ethical concerns of dirty fortunes, the role of luck in success, the diminishing marginal utility of money, political inequality, ecological sustainability, and the impact on individual happiness.
Proposed limitarianism as a regulative ideal, acknowledging that it may not be immediately achievable but arguing for efforts to move towards it. She suggested addressing the root causes of increasing wealth inequality, restoring governments to serve everyone's needs, changing economic systems to prioritise sustainable prosperity, and implementing progressive fiscal policies.
Emphasised the importance of citizens and activists in shaping the kind of society they want, advocating for a society with limited inequalities.
Luke:
Argued that redistributing income and wealth from the super-rich to the wider population would significantly improve living standards and economic stability.
Emphasised the vast wealth held by the top 1% and suggested that even a small portion of this wealth could make a substantial difference to society if redistributed.
Suggested practical policy measures such as wealth taxes, compulsory profit-sharing, and reducing CEO-to-worker pay gaps to achieve wealth redistribution.
Challenged the notion that wealth redistribution is utopian or extremist, arguing that it is a pragmatic solution supported by economic evidence.
Discussed the need to overcome public scepticism and political opposition to wealth redistribution, advocating for a more reasoned and moderate approach to the issue.
Emphasised the importance of continued advocacy for limitarianism and wealth redistribution, drawing parallels to the Brexit debate and stressing the need for perseverance in pushing for policy change.
Graham:
Discussed Ingrid's proposal of setting moral and political limits on wealth, noting the arbitrary nature of the proposed thresholds ($1 million to $10 million) and their implications in different countries.
Addressed some of the more provocative statements in the book, such as the suggestion that nobody deserves to be a millionaire and the idea that having over a million pounds does not significantly enhance one's quality of life. He disagreed with some of them but acknowledged their effectiveness in sparking dialogue.
Acknowledged that the book reshaped his perspective on societal fairness and the role of wealth in creating a better society, despite not entirely agreeing with Ingrid's criticism of neoliberalism and capitalism.
Shared his appreciation for the book's detailed exploration of the benefits of creating a fairer society, particularly in terms of social mobility and opportunity for future generations.
Reflected on the challenges of addressing wealth inequality and the need for structural changes beyond simply implementing wealth taxes. He emphasised the importance of understanding systemic issues that perpetuate inequality.
Shared his personal journey of social mobility and success, underscoring the importance of equal opportunities for future generations.
Discussed the link between inequality and climate change, highlighting the book's potential to address these interconnected issues.
In the Q&A, the panellists discussed the philosophical, political, and economic objections to the idea of limitarianism:
Philosophically, limitarianism focuses on outcomes rather than opportunities, unlike many theoretical approaches; however, it is closely aligned with approaches such as John Rawls’s difference principle.
Politically, there is a need to focus on the small elite of ultra-wealthy individuals who could contribute significantly to addressing inequality without sacrificing their own standards of living. We need brave politicians to enact changes that align with public sentiment, as evidenced by polls showing support for higher taxation on the wealthy to fund public services.
All three panellists agreed that the economic objections to limitarianism (such as its potential impact on innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth) are unfounded, and that redistributing wealth would unlock the economic potential of millions, increasing social mobility and economic participation. By contrast, there is plenty of evidence (as per our End Times webinar) of the detrimental effects of unchecked inequality on societies throughout history.
SIGN UP NOW FOR EVENTS IN APRIL
This Time No Mistakes: How to Remake Britain – with Will Hutton
Monday 22 April 2024, 6.30pm to 7.45pm, Bush House (central London) and online
With Will Hutton, Helena Kennedy KC, and Professor Bobby Duffy
In his new book, This Time No Mistakes: How to Remake Britain, political economist and Observer columnist Will Hutton analyses how the left and right have gone wrong over the course of the last century. He argues that two great traditions, ethical socialism and progressive liberalism, can be brought together to offer a different way forward and help shape a better Britain.
How workers can reclaim the work ethic – with Elizabeth Anderson
Thursday 25 April 2024, 1pm to 2pm, Zoom
With Elizabeth Anderson, Sohrab Ahmari, Bethan Staton, Stuart White and Will Snell
In her latest book, Hijacked: How neoliberalism turned the work ethic against the workers, US political philosopher Elizabeth Anderson argues that the 17th century concept of the Protestant work ethic has been perverted, and is now used to justify policies that promote the wealth and power of the richest in society, at workers’ expense.