Limitarianism — The Case Against Extreme Wealth

Some people on this planet own more than a billion dollars. More than one thousand million dollars. On the other hand, many have to survive on a few dollars per day and struggle every day to bring food to the table. Yet, many people ignore or at least underestimate the significance of this kind of inequality. The issue affects millions, but it rarely makes it into the daily news. Can we, as a global society, afford to keep going like this?

In her book “Limitarianism,“ economist and philosopher Ingrid Robeyns critically examines recent trends in inequality and wealth accumulation, leading her to suggest a context-dependent upper limit on how much wealth any person should hold. This limit has a political and ethical dimension and relies on the so-called “riches line“ as well — a threshold that any random group of people determines to be the amount of money above which no additional benefits are gained. Sounds complicated and utopian? Let me introduce you to the author’s reasoning:

One crucial factor that leads Robeyns to her conclusion concerns the origin of wealth. Many millionaires and billionaires amass their money in dubious ways: through labor exploitation, tax evasion, or business practices that harm public health. What follows is that financial success is a lot less attributable to talent or personality — as many people believe it to be — than it is to unethical behaviors (in the past or the present). Luck often plays a role as well, as do government incentives, investments, or regulations. Lastly, without citizens who consume products and services, no entrepreneur could succeed.

Next, the author explores the effects of excess wealth on democracy and our planet. Wealthy people undermine collective decision-making, which is essential to a functioning democracy, by essentially buying influence (if you’ve never heard of golden visas, a quick Google search will bring up some sobering stories). Many also contribute disproportionately to the climate crisis, for example through harmful investments, overconsumption, or discrediting of scientific findings. All of this clashes with the concept of the social contract, according to which societies establish structures and institutions that aim to maximize benefits and minimize risk for all. Robeyns shows how wealth inequality promoted by neoliberal policies threatens this contract.

But what about the potential benefits of introducing a limit on wealth? What could change once this money becomes available to society as a whole? Robeyns describes several opportunities: fighting climate change more efficiently, alleviating poverty in both low- and high-income countries, and incentivizing the changes and innovations we want to see in the world. Most of these issues can only be addressed by the collective, not by a few generous individuals. The author even argues that a limit could positively affect the rich. It might prevent social unrest, enable them to contribute in a meaningful way to an economy that works for all, and provide their children — and themselves — with a life that is more in tube with that of ordinary citizens. Initiatives like “TaxMeNow“ indicate that many rich people already share this sentiment.

Throughout the book, Robeyns refutes multiple common objections to her arguments. These include the famous “trickle-down“ effect and the claim that an inheritance tax would be “double taxation“ (it’s not, when the money someone inherits is considered as a form of income). Moreover, she argues that philanthropy falls short as a means to address humanity’s urgent problems because it’s inherently undemocratic. It rests on the assumption that a person is more capable and better informed than the public or the state to advance the common good simply because they are rich.

Robeyns finishes with a set of essential changes that would need to be implemented to move towards her vision. She writes with confidence and sets out a clear path for action. At the same time, she understands Limitarianism as a “regulative ideal“ to strive towards and stresses the need to involve as many people as possible in the formulation of concrete policies. In the end, it’s about the systems in place, not the individuals.

For the most part, Robeyns presents her ideas with clarity, though some of the more conceptual aspects — for example, why we should care about poverty in the first place — required me to re-read. Generally, I would have enjoyed a more thorough guide into the moral principles and philosophical basis of her arguments. She often refers to previous work done by herself and others for further reading instead of elaborating on these.

Maybe you still think about Robeyns’s ideas as radical. Her claim that putting a cap on wealth could be enough to address all of the problems mentioned above is certainly bold. Depending on your preexisting political beliefs, you might even be inclined to put the book down before you make it to the first chapter. Don’t. Even if you don’t end up agreeing with every point the author makes, it can be rewarding to change your perspective for a while. Consider this: Why do we continue to complain about people who rely on government assistance because they have fallen victim to the inner workings of capitalism instead of finally demanding accountability from those at the very top?