Chuck Darwin<p>Limitarianism: why we need to put a cap on the super-rich </p><p>Suppose you worked 50 hours a week between the ages of 20 and 65 <br>– week in week out, year in year out<br> – ❓how much would your hourly wage need to be so that by the end you had amassed Musk’s wealth? </p><p>The answer is: $1,871,794 per hour. </p><p>💥Almost two million dollars per hour. Every working hour for 45 years.</p><p>Elon Musk might be seen as exceptional, but there were 2,668 other billionaires on that Forbeslist. </p><p>Together they held $12,700,000,000,000. </p><p>Do you, like me, see all those zeros dancing before your eyes? </p><p>That’s because we don’t know how to take in that number. </p><p>On average the value of their assets is $4.75bn. <br>If we ask the same question again <br>– what’s the average lifetime hourly wage? <br>– we get $40,598 per hour, the equivalent to what many Americans hope to earn in a year.</p><p>How much is too much? <br>When I started this research, 10 years ago, several of my colleagues <br>– professors in philosophy, economics and related disciplines <br>– were initially amused that I wanted to delve into this question. <br>Some argued that <a href="https://c.im/tags/poverty" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>poverty</span></a> was what mattered, not <a href="https://c.im/tags/inequality" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>inequality</span></a>. <br>A few felt that focusing on the rich was an indication of envy on my part.</p><p>But I wasn’t alone. <br>Across various disciplines, scholars were starting to see that something was happening at the upper levels of society, <br>and we ought to pay attention. <br>I started to think through the <a href="https://c.im/tags/ethics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ethics</span></a> of extreme wealth concentration in a systematic way, <br>and after a decade I became convinced that <br>👉we must create a world in which no one is super-rich <br>– that there must be a cap on the amount of wealth any one person can have. <br>❇️I call this <a href="https://c.im/tags/limitarianism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>limitarianism</span></a>.</p><p>As a concept, limitarianism is simple. <br>But what does it mean in practice? </p><p>My book endeavours to answer that question, but it can best be understood as a regulative ideal <br>– an outcome to strive for but which, like the eradication of poverty, is unlikely to be definitively achieved.</p><p>In practical terms, limitarianism calls for three kinds of action. <br>♦️First there is <a href="https://c.im/tags/structural" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>structural</span></a> action. Our societies’ key social and economic institutions should give people genuinely equal opportunities, through ❇️affordable childcare, free high-quality education and a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy.<br>The more structural steps we take to reduce inequality, the less need there will be for the second strategy:</p><p>♦️fiscal action. <br>If taxation were our only tool for achieving a limitarian society, <br>💥the tax rate would need to be set at 100% for wealth and income beyond a certain point<br> (spoiler alert: it is not the only tool). <br>Still, there is a very strong case for imposing a cap on extreme wealth.</p><p>The third kind of action limitarianism calls for is <br>♦️ethical action: we all need to embrace a limitarian ethos.</p><p>One objection to this might be that limiting how much wealth a person can accrue would require us to give up private property or the market mechanism, and force us into USSR-style communism. </p><p>Such an objection is nonsense, <br>and it’s probably just another attempt to silence meaningful criticism of the status quo. </p><p>Markets are a very powerful tool for securing material welfare; <br>private property is a cornerstone of our security, autonomy and prosperity. </p><p>The real question, which we must seek to answer, is rather which constraints on the market and private property we need if we are to achieve limitarianism.</p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/21/limitarianism-the-case-against-extreme-wealth-ingrid-robeyns-extract?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">theguardian.com/books/2024/jan</span><span class="invisible">/21/limitarianism-the-case-against-extreme-wealth-ingrid-robeyns-extract?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other</span></a></p>