Where Should Society Draw the Line on Extreme Wealth?
In her compelling analysis, Ingrid Robeyns addresses the age-old question of extreme wealth and its societal impact. This discussion is not new; ancient civilizations like those described in the Hebrew Bible and Torah proposed periodic debt cancellations and property redistributions to mitigate inequality. Aristotle praised the stabilizing effects of controlled wealth disparities in classical Greece. In modern times, Franklin D. Roosevelt suggested capping annual incomes to address wealth concentration, equating today to roughly US$480,000.
Robeyns introduces a provocative idea: governments should set a wealth limit of around €10 million (or USD equivalent) per person. She describes this figure as a guideline rather than a strict cap, reflecting a balance of moral and political considerations. Her research indicates that such a limit would be broadly acceptable across Europe, where many people view wealth above €4 million for a family of four as excessive. In lower-income countries, the acceptable threshold would be even lower.
Extreme wealth, Robeyns argues, is frequently linked to immoral and criminal behaviors, notably tax evasion. She points out the unethical nature of these practices, regardless of their legality, and ties current wealth inequalities to historical injustices like slavery and conquest, as detailed in Sven Beckert’s “Empire of Cotton.”
Robeyns contends that limiting wealth accumulation would enhance societal well-being. While opinions on market fairness vary, many agree on the importance of democratic health and equal opportunities. Excessive wealth concentration, as economic studies show, often drains resources from the broader population, contradicting trickle-down economic theories. This concentration not only affects the poor but undermines democratic processes by amplifying the political power of the wealthy.
Drawing on works like Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s “The Spirit Level,” Robeyns highlights how wealth inequality can erode democracy, restrict government investment in public goods, and threaten meritocratic values. She suggests policy measures for a “limitarian” approach, informed by scholars like Anthony Atkinson, Thomas Piketty, and Isabelle Ferreras. These measures include enhancing worker rights in corporate decisions, revising tax rules to prevent evasion, and implementing substantial inheritance taxes to prevent wealth accumulation across generations.
Robeyns also addresses the ecological crisis, arguing that wealth beyond a certain point could be better used to tackle collective problems like climate change. She posits that limiting assets might be more feasible than imposing individual resource consumption quotas, though she acknowledges the political and administrative challenges.
“Limitarianism” is a thought-provoking read for those concerned with inequality. Echoing the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which advocates for social distinctions based solely on the common good, Robeyns calls for public debate on when wealth concentration stops serving society. Whether the threshold is €10 million or another figure, her book provides a crucial framework for this discussion.
Ingrid Robeyns’s “Limitarianism” argues for a modern approach to wealth limits, reflecting on why and how societies should implement such measures. As the richest 1% in the US now holds as much wealth as the bottom 90%, the need for this debate is more urgent than ever. Robeyns’s work offers a fresh perspective on addressing extreme wealth in the twenty-first century.
