Limitarianism: The case against extreme wealth – with Ingrid Robeyns
Thursday 28 March 2024, 1pm to 2pm (UK time), Zoom
We all take notice when the poor become even poorer – when we witness more rough sleepers and longer food bank queues. However, when the rich amass greater wealth, it often goes unnoticed in public, and for most of us, our daily lives remain ostensibly unchanged.
In her book Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth, philosopher and economist Ingrid Robeyns sheds light on the alarming extent of our wealth problem, which has quietly escalated over the past 50 years.
From moral and political perspectives to economic, social, environmental, and psychological dimensions, she argues that extreme wealth is not only unjustifiable but is also detrimental to society as a whole, and proposes a radical solution - placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate.
At this event, the Policy Institute and the Fairness Foundation hosted a discussion on 'limitarianism', Robeyns’ concept that challenges our current system by calling for a strict cap on wealth accumulation.
Speakers
- Professor Ingrid Robeyns, Chair in Ethics of Institutions, Utrecht University and author of Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
- Luke Hildyard, Director, High Pay Centre and author of Enough: Why It's Time to Abolish the Super-Rich
- Graham Hobson, technologist and member of Patriotic Millionaires UK
- Will Snell, Chief Executive, Fairness Foundation (chair)
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.