Billionaires shouldn’t exist. It feels weird for me to write that sentence even though I intellectually know it to be true. My younger, conservative self would be dumbfounded if he knew he would one day write those words. But they are the truth. Extreme wealth has thrown society out of balance in many ways. It was something I began to suspect long before Elon’s very public and ongoing mental breakdown. Even knowing that Taylor Swift has broken that glass ceiling of billionaires and is likely doing some good with her money, billionaires should not exist. But I thought taxing was the only way to make this happen. When I saw Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns on Edelweiss, I knew I would have to read this book. Because taking away their money seemed like the only way to do it. I was wrong, and Ingrid Robeyns lays out multiple approaches to disrupt inequality.
TL;DR
Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns is an excellent argument against extreme wealth. It’s well reasoned with some interesting solutions. Robeyns makes an effort to include all parts of society in her appeal to limit wealth. Highly recommended.
From the Publisher
An original, bold, and convincing argument for a cap on wealth by the philosopher who coined the term “limitarianism.”
How much money is too much? Is it ethical, and democratic, for an individual to amass a limitless amount of wealth, and then spend it however they choose? Many of us feel that the answer to that is no—but what can we do about it?
Ingrid Robeyns has long written and argued for the principle she calls “limitarianism”—or the need to limit extreme wealth. This idea is gaining momentum in the mainstream – with calls to “tax the rich” and slogans like “every billionaire is a policy failure”—but what does it mean in practice?
Robeyns explains the key reasons to support the case against extreme wealth:
- It keeps the poor poor and inequalities growing
- It’s often dirty money
- It undermines democracy
- It’s one of the leading causes of climate change
- Nobody actually deserves to be a millionaire
- There are better things to do with excess money
- The rich will benefit, too
This will be the first authoritative trade book to unpack the concept of a cap on wealth, where to draw the line, how to collect the excess and what to do with the money. In the process, Robeyns will ignite an urgent debate about wealth, one that calls into question the very forces we live by (capitalism and neoliberalism) and invites us to a radical reimagining of our world.
Review: Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns
The subtitle of this book is The Case Against Extreme Wealth, and it’s the word extreme that matters. Some might be interested to note that Robeyns doesn’t mean to get rid of the rich altogether. Her philosophy still has room for millionaires in it, and she also acknowledges that one fixed number is untenable. One million in U.S. dollars isn’t the same as one million in Japanese yen or British pounds. That said, Robeyns makes a strong case against extreme wealth. She begins by laying out what she means by extreme wealth, and then Robeyns goes on to demolish the argument that the extremely wealthy ‘deserve’ that money. First, she defines limitarianism and distinguishes three separate limits: riches, ethical, and political. The riches limit is where more money doesn’t impact your standard of living, and the ethical limit is based on moral grounds. The political limit is what the state should use when designing systems. I like these distinctions, and they make sense as she explains them. Inequality, shady practices, the undermining of democracy, and the environment destruction caused by billionaires are the big rocks that she discusses to set up her case against extreme wealth. Each are compelling by themselves, but put together, they’re a devastating argument. Her chapter on why no one ‘deserves’ to be extremely wealthy is convincing. Robeyns also dedicates a chapter proposing what to do with all that money. Unsurprisingly, many of her solutions are to reinvest that money in society for the benefit of all, such as helping out nations and peoples who have been devastated by climate change. Or, in particular for the U.S., funding a public health insurance so that people don’t have to choose between death or loading their family with extreme debt. The chapter on why charity isn’t an answer is great. That isn’t to say don’t contribute to charity; do so if it makes sense to you. However, relying on people like the Koch family to donate to charity is a wasted effort. For them, it’s not about the donation but about the tax shelter they get from it. (Of course, that’s my opinion.) Robeyns tries very hard to include the extremely wealthy in all of her actions, and she even has a chapter on how it will benefit them. All in all, this was an interesting and, in the section on climate change, frightening book.
Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns is a political and philosophical work of non-fiction. It’s a substantial work in many ways and, at over 300 pages, is one of the longer philosophical works I’ve read lately. It’s an easy read in that Robeyns’s writing is accessible to anyone; she’s taken the time to translate complex concepts into ones even I can understand. That said, it’s a challenging read because it forces the reader to confront how our current society is broken.
It's Confirming Your Bias
It’s true. This book did provide me with arguments to support a position that I already held. Robeyns did this through well reasoned arguments that are supported by data; in addition, she discusses talks she’s had with millionaires about the problems of extreme wealth. The back of the book is packed full of citations. So, if you want to dispute her arguments, she provides you plenty of opportunities to attempt just that.
While I was primed to buy her arguments prior to reading the book, Robeyns took me past my limits. She believes that the local equivalent of €10 million should be the upper threshold, and I have to admit that was uncomfortable for me. I thought it was too low. Robeyns acknowledges this and leaves room for a consensus approach. However, her arguments did make me lower my threshold. I don’t think have an exact number, but now I don’t think anyone should have hundreds of millions of dollars.
Taxing the Rich Won't Solve All Your Problems
My conservative friends use the above reply anytime I talk about raising taxes on the rich. Of course, they’re right. Robeyns is also not arguing that taxing the rich will solve all our problems. She notes that the rich use their excess political influence to corrupt politicians to favor them in tax laws. (For reference, see the 2017 tax reform in the U.S.) When the rich own politicians, politicians will protect them at the cost of the middle and lower classes. In addition, Robeyns dedicates time to discuss the ‘wealth defense industry’ which exists to protect wealth from taxation. So, no taxation is not the only way to go about solving our problems, but it is a part of the solution.
But interestingly enough, Robeyns uses as one of her examples the group Patriotic Millionaires, who are a group of the super-rich asking governments to tax them more. They even sent a letter to the economic forum at Davos. So, if the rich are saying that taxing themselves will help, we should listen.
They Earned It
Another argument is that its their money, they earned it. On the face of it, this is laughable. But if we’re to take this argument seriously, we should engage with it. The extremely wealthy did not earn all of that wealth. To me, when someone says they’ve earned their money, they mean through work, through effort. The extremely wealthy have not done that. Often, their wealth comes from investments, land, and inheritance. First, no one earns an inheritance. Being born into a rich family is as much luck of the draw as being born into a poor one. And returns on investments are simply the excess value extracted from someone else’s labor.
But when people say the “They earned it” line, I think they aren’t talking about billionaires. I think they’re talking about small business owners who turned their hard work into a success. If so, then the answer becomes maybe. Did they build it off ethical business practices? Or did they earn their wealth by underpaying undocumented workers like many of the construction companies in my area? Did they earn it by scamming people? The answer matter.
Finally, what happens when the company is in the hands of people who didn’t build it? In the 80s, Sam Walton, CEO of WalMart, had a salary in the $300,000 range. Now, the CEO, who didn’t build the stores and oversees its current ethically dubious practices, earns $24 million. If we round up Walton’s salary to $400,000 in 1980, that would be $1.5 million in today’s money. So, is the current CEO, who, again, didn’t build the company, really worth 16 times more than the man who did? I would say no. Walton’s descendants are the richest family in the U.S. They earn way more from investments than their father made from his work. So, all this is to say that, yes, Sam Walton earned his riches. The CEO and the Walton family didn’t.
She's Being Divisive by Blaming the Rich
Robeyns goes to great lengths to acknowledge that the rich must be a part of this process. This change has to come from everyone. Her use of the Patriotic Millionaire group is just one example of that. It’s better if the change comes from all of us instead of being imposed upon one group.
In addition, Robeyns makes sure to present how limitarianism will benefit the rich. I appreciate that she did this, but the cynical part of me says that she didn’t account enough for the rich that want to control the rest of us. She didn’t account for how the rich consider themselves better than the rest of us, which maybe because of who she’s talked to amongst the rich. Unlike me, Robeyns is being inclusive. She wants the rich to participate in limitarianism and offer their thoughts and opinions. And Robeyns isn’t “blaming” the rich so much as asking them to take responsibility for their actions and for their consumption. In fact, she’s asking all of us to take the same responsibility.
Conclusion
Ingrid Robeyns’s Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth is an excellently argued book. It’s worth reading to understand the arguments on why extreme wealth is detrimental to society. Robeyns makes compelling arguments with excellent supporting references. In addition, she’s suggesting a way for the entirety of society to approach and work on the problem of inequality. Robeyns makes the case for limitarianism.
Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns is available from Astra House now.
© PrimmLife.com 2024