Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

by Ingrid Robeyns

‘The best case I've read for putting an upper limit on the accumulation of wealth’ Richard WilkinsonNo-one deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you. We all notice when the poor get when there are more rough sleepers and food bank queues start to grow. But if the rich become richer, there is nothing much to see in public and, for most of us, daily life doesn't change. Or at least, not immediately.In this astonishing, eye-opening intervention, world-leading philosopher and economist Ingrid Robeyns exposes the true extent of our wealth problem, which has spent the past fifty years silently spiralling out of control. In moral, political, economic, social, environmental and psychological terms, she shows, extreme wealth is not only unjustifiable but harmful to us all - the rich included.In place of our current system, Robeyns offers a breathtakingly clear limitarianism. The answer to so many of the problems posed by neoliberal capitalism - and the opportunity for a vastly better world - lies in placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate. Because nobody deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you.

Genres: Nonfiction, Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Sociology, Audiobook, Finance

336 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2023

Reviews

[Stitching Ghost · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basically, what this book says is that the ultra-rich are a policy failure, but the market economy is good, so we have to make it morally wrong to hoard wealth so that eventually it'll become the rule to cap wealth at a certain amount. It makes the case for that idea by providing examples of rich people who separated themselves from much of their wealth and by looking at the outsized impact of the ultra-rich on the world.

The book itself is approachable but I felt like it really aimed to speak to the ultra-rich and not the everyday person such as myself and personally I don't believe that appealing to morality when it comes to most of these people will be any kind of effective (something that doesn't seem to be lost on Robeyns herself). I also found it to be quite repetitive.

I also don't see how the idea holds any chance to be applied without the end of corporatism and in a context where wealth is so largely abstract and not made of liquid assets and where our political class has a vested interest in not even marginally inconveniencing the moneyed class, but I think that aspect was beyond the scope the book aimed to cover.

Many thanks to Astra Publishing House for providing me a digital copy of this book for review consideration.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

Disclaimer: The publisher provided a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. Any and all opinions that follow are mine alone.

Review: Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns

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.

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.

[Judy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Robeyns puts forth multiple valid arguments for limiting extreme generational wealth, but after reading the book I don't think it is something that will ever come to fruition. It's just too subjective. I agree that it's a waste for 1% of the population to have so much money, power and control; however, getting them to turn loose of it based on morality just won't happen. As a policy and using a cap on wealth, well no country would be able to get the law passed due to wealthy influence on political moves.

The book was easily readable and presented some good ideas which I think will raise awareness of the issues. I did find it quite repetitive though.

Thanks to Astra Publishing House through Netgalley for an advance copy. Expected publication January 16, 2024.

[Allen Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding book that makes a convincing case for why extreme wealth is so harmful for society. RTC

[Keen Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.”

It’s interesting to get a Dutch perspective on the subject, especially as historically it was one of the first nations to fully embrace and exploit the full powers of capitalism on the world. Robeyns insists that the upper limit for personal wealth should be at 10 million Euros/GBP/USD, which certainly provides food for thought. We see that in the US, “Nine out of ten inhabitants have seen their share of wealth contract since 1990.”

One quite refreshing and encouraging thing to read of is that many multi-millionaires, decamillionaires and billionaires who have been campaigning to pay more tax and for a fairer system to be implemented. She takes the example of the American, Chuck Feeney who gave away almost of his $8 billion fortune to various charities. But as she says Feeney built his entire fortune on tax avoidance and lobbied hard in Washington, and that he shouldn't have gotten into that position in the first place. She reveals that Anglo-American philanthropy is far more prevalent not because Brits and Americans are more generous but because their systems are so flawed and inadequate compared to most in Western European countries which have provided better and fairer systems instead of relying on occasional philanthropy.

She makes the point that wealth consistently undermines “democracy” throughout most of the world, and they have successfully engineered the economics so that they continue to serve their interests at the expense of everyone else, helped largely by the wealth-defence industry a result of the super-rich lobbying over decades to make unfair changes to fiscal systems so they pay even less tax and she describes it as – “yet another type of dirty money.”

“In 2022, ExxonMobil made a profit of almost $56 billion-the highest in its history, and more than double its profits in 2021. Shell posted profits of $40 billion, again double the previous year, and again, the highest in history. Taken together, BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon, and Total Energies amassed profits of $199.3 billion in 2022.”

This is all the more interesting as that same year energy prices rose so high in many parts of the world than many working and middle-class families could no longer afford to heat their homes. At one point she discusses the culture around golden visas, describing it as morally and politically problematic, undermining any idea of political equality, she adds, “A country that sells its citizenship has two sets of political rules: one for wealth holders who can buy their way into the country, and another for the ordinary folk who cannot.”

Places like Malta and Cyprus are obvious cases but the US, UK, Ireland and Portugal also offer permanent residency in exchange for “investment”. Possibly the most blatant example is in the case of John Key’s government in New Zealand who granted Peter Thiel citizenship, even though the man had only spent 12 days in the country. These so called golden visas look all the more problematic, especially when we see how these same governments routinely treat the arrival of desperate immigrants from war torn nations.

She gets into some interesting terrain when she brings up the subject of the many who have benefited from the legacy of Nazism, colonialism and slavery. As well as many German companies and families this also includes many royal families, banks and politicians too. She wonders how different the landscape could look if these people made meaningful steps to give back reparations.

One encouraging move happened in 2016 when the University of Glasgow recognised that in the 18th and 19th centuries it had accepted gifts from people who profited from slavery, and it went onto develop a series of initiatives to acknowledge their past as well as funding a range of intellectual activities and signed an agreement with the University of West Indies in Jamaica and pledged £20 million to fund activities to restorative justice.

Robeyns also takes the case of large scale tax fraud by the super-wealthy in America, (an overwhelmingly white crime) compared to low-level robberies and dealing weed (primarily black crime), which are disproportionately penalised, including jail sentences, even though the tax fraud has a far bigger impact on society. And of course as is the case with most western nations when you compare the difference between benefit fraud against tax fraud, benefit fraud is consistently dwarfed by the phenomenal scale of tax fraud, and yet again we see that consistently benefit fraud is demonised and given far more time, resources and attention, usually in cahoots with right-wing media interests (who are often partial to huge tax fraud or avoidance themselves).

Unfortunately as long as the world is ruled by a corrupt political class of thieving liars who are only concerned with self-interest and self-enrichment, it’s going to be incredibly hard to make any meaningful changes to the toxic system. And let’s not forget this same system is also protected and strengthened by a countless army of lawyers, lobbyists and consultants whose interest align with the politicians and corporations. The left and everyone else get occasional and tokenistic “steps in the right direction” as crumbs from the table, but as a wise woman once said, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

[Diana Willemsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lees dit boek!

Niet omdat het hier gaat om het heilige gelijk, maar als tegenwicht aan de verering en de bescherming van de ultrarijken.

[Rachel B · Rating 2 out of 5]

Robeyns argues in this book that we should limit the amount of money people are able to accumulate, and that the ultra-rich have no business being ultra-rich.

I started off thinking that this was at least thought-provoking, even if I have mixed feelings about the author's views. The book is a bit repetitive, and the author's blatant political bias really bothered me throughout. (And so when she brought up the dangers of propaganda, and how media should be nuanced, it was very ironic.)

Robeyns seems to hate anyone who doesn't share her liberal political views. She routinely blames all the problems in the world on libertarians, neoliberals, and conservatives (she frequently uses the terms “right-wingers” and “the far right” to refer to conservatives). Every time a rich person happens to be conservative, she's quick to point out their political affiliation, but simply omits that biographical information when the rich person happens to be associated with the left. Then, too, she calls out particular conservatives for specific wrongdoings, and conveniently ignores mentioning all the liberals who have acted wrongly in the exact same way.

Weirdly, she sees the right as not only the people who love hoarding money and power the most, and the people who will vote for that type of politician, but also talks about how if things continue so unequally, the right will be the people who rise up in violence - especially antisemitic-, racist-, anti-LGBTQ- based violence. So, the people who support the rich will also be the ones to revolt “against the rich”… but will violently attack groups who don't necessarily have anything to do with the problem of too much wealth…? 🤔 I fail to see the logic in this argument.

I actually think that if we were to institute some form of an upper limit on wealth, Robeyns's proposed amounts are too high. I also think a lot of the changes she proposes would lead to a shrinking of inequality between the middle-class and the upper-class, particularly the ultra-rich, but that the lower-class would not actually be affected much.

I agree with some of the ideas here: white-collar crimes need to have longer prison sentences attached; “buying” visas/citizenship should not be a thing; tax havens should be closed; higher minimum wages need to be set; highest-paid workers in a company should not earn more than x-times the amount of lowest-paid workers; capital should be taxed at a higher rate than wages.

But I can't get on board with all of it: I found her arguments for increasing inheritance taxes, to the point of limiting inheritances, unconvincing; I don't support a minimum guaranteed income; and I find it naïve of her to think “the government” can fix everything in the world, and that majority rule is always “fair.” Pretty sure 49% of people would still be upset if things didn't go their way. There simply isn't a way to satisfy everyone.

She also mostly ignores the fact that the rich can only be so because we, the non-rich, support them. We buy their products and use their services. We feel entitled to have it all… we think we shouldn't have to sacrifice anything, not even our convenience or brand preferences, in order to support companies that treat people well. It's always someone else's problem, or the job of “the government” to change things. We could change things pretty quickly if we started voting more with our own money. Or if we gave more generously ourselves. If we're not willing to sacrifice our comforts, why would we expect others to? Robeyns writes off utilitarianism and ultra generosity for the middle class as saying it would turn us into robots and that it would be “too demanding.” Really?

Interestingly, she praises the “Resource Generation Group,” an organization for the “top 10% of wealthy Americans between 18-35” for their members giving 7% of their wealth away, on average. Of course, she never mentions what the average person gives, or that many Christians believe in giving at least 10%. (Not that all who claim to be Christian give this - they don't. In the U.S., the average is about 3% of income.) As someone who has given away 10% (or more) of my income my entire life (even as a child), I find it strange, and a little amusing, that this amount seems generous to Robeyns, particularly for those who can afford to give so much more.

For Christians, I think a better book to read would be Money, Possessions, and Eternity by Randy Alcorn. If that's too long, The Treasure Principle is a very short alternative.

Note: It was frustrating that the author chose to use multiple forms of currency throughout (U.S. dollars, British pounds, Euros - whichever was applicable in her examples), without equivalencies in parentheses. I could only grasp the amounts being discussed about a third of the time because of this.

This was a super helpful point:

If an economist talks about $1.90 expressed in purchasing power parity, they're not referring to what a person could buy with $1.90 in New Delhi….but rather, what baskets of goods a person could buy with around two dollars in the U.S. in 2011.

I received access to this audiobook from the publisher via NetGalley.

[Tobi ﾄﾋﾞ · Rating 3 out of 5]

This fabulous new book by Ingrid Robeyns's emerges at an extremely important time in history, presenting to us a compelling argument for regulating individual financial wealth. The book, which introduces the concept of 'limitarianism,' becomes a clarion call for setting limits on wealth accumulation and delves into the intricacies of drawing the line on where excess wealth ends, coupled with insightful suggestions on utilising collected riches through structural, fiscal, and ethical means proposed by the author.

I’d like to thank the publishers of this book for this commission and sending me a pre-publication edition of the first English translation of this book in exchange for an honest review!!! This book is due to be published in English on the 6th of February 2024, and below is my review as of December 2023 and January 2024.

Robeyns eloquently thoroughly covers the key reasons underpinning her belief in limitarianism. She astutely argues that extreme wealth is tantamount to 'dirty money,' perpetuating poverty, undermining democracy, and contributing significantly to climate change. Notably, she dispels the notion that limitarianism solely benefits the poor, asserting that even the rich stand to gain from a reimagining of our current capitalist and neoliberal systems.

However, a notable concern arises in the book's focus on the ultra-rich. The constant, repetitive ideas of this book did sometimes get a bit boring, especially when it dipped away from fully discussing the complexities of wealth in a largely abstract, non-liquid form, in which it most often is.

These phrases that I often see echoing through social media, 'Tax the rich,' 'Nobody earns a billion dollars,' and 'It is impossible to be an ethical billionaire,' resonate with the growing consciousness around labor exploitation. Despite skepticism about significant changes occurring in the near future, there's optimism in the popularisation of terms like 'quiet quitting' and 'coasting culture.' Social media's role in raising awareness about tenancy rights, workers' rights, and human rights is acknowledged, marking a positive shift in societal consciousness.

While the book admirably addresses the crucial issue of wealth limits, my observation about the writing style adds, what I guiltily feel is a petty element to this review. Maybe my issue was more with the translation than the writing style, or maybe it is translated very well and it was just the original writer, but it sort of didn't seem serious or angry enough? I felt like somehow, despite the serious and upsetting things revealed in this book, it was still somewhat lighthearted.

The practical application of limitarianism appears challenging within the current framework of corporatism and a political class with vested interests in safeguarding the privileges of the wealthy. The book may not thoroughly explore the obstacles tied to implementing such a paradigm shift, leaving me with questions about the feasibility of this idea in the real-world context.

Nevertheless, the timing of this book's publication holds particular significance, aligning with a period where individuals are becoming more conscious of their rights as workers, tenants, renters, borrowers, and customers. As discussions around the vast income disparities gain momentum, Robeyns's work becomes a relevant and timely contribution to the ongoing dialogue.

[Genevieve Brassard · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5: Not a light or fun read but it warmed my little socialist heart to read such common sense arguments for the abolition of extreme wealth on moral grounds, especially at this demoralizing moment when the tech bros and oligarchs are taking over. If only billionaires would read it and finally see the light…

[Bücherwolf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Als Fan von antikapitalistischen Sachbüchern hat mich dieses Buch förmlich angelächelt, als ich es durch Zufall in unserer Buchhandlung gesehen habe. Ich konnte nicht anders als es zu lesen und hab einige Argumente für eine Reichtumsobergrenze dazugelernt!
Das Buch ist so strukturiert, dass es zuerst anhand logischen Argumenten erklärt, wieviel Geld überhaupt zu viel ist und daraufhin verschiedene Punkte erläutert, die klar aufzeigen, wie unfassbar schädlich uneingeschränkter Reichtum für unsere Gesellschaft ist.
Anhand mehrerer Umfragen wurde in London ein Richtwert ermittelt, ab dem der Großteil aller Befragten sagten, dass dieser Geldwert nichts mehr zur Steigerung des Lebenswohlstands beiträgt. Dieser lag bei ungefähr 10 Millionen Dollar. Dies ist laut der Autorin der optimale Höchstwert, den wir bei Reichtum setzen müssen, da man sich mit diesem Geld schon so viel Luxus leisten kann, dass jeder weitere Luxus keinen steigenden Wert für das Wohlbefinden der Überreichen hat. Dies ist jedoch nur die Wohlstandsobergrenze. Es gibt jedoch auch die ethische Obergrenze, die wir viel niedriger anlegen sollten. Nämlich bei circa 1 Millionen Dollar, da jeder weitere Geldbetrag moralisch nicht mehr vertretbar wäre.
Und weshalb er moralisch nicht vertretbar ist, erläutert sie bereits im nächsten Kapitel, in dem sie aufzeigt, dass extremer Reichtum immer - zu 100% - durch Ausbeutung, Erbgut oder Steuervermeidung bzw Steuerflucht entsteht und nicht verdient sein kann, also auch nicht moralisch rechtfertigbar ist.
Und so hangelt sich die Autorin durch unzählige Begründungen, weshalb der Limitarismus das einzige Moralsystem ist, womit wir endlich die unfassbaren Ungleichheiten und Krisen bewältigen können, mit denen wir uns aufgrund der Überreichen herumschlagen müssen.
Abzug bekommt das Buch wegen einem recht anstrengenden Schreibstil (Man kann Sachbücher durchaus auch so schreiben, dass es sich leicht und entspannt lesen lässt und trotzdem nichts an Seriosität einbüßt) und einer teilweise überwältigenden Menge an Argumenten und Aufzählungen.
Doch wenn man dieses Buch in Ruhe und mit ausreichend Notizen liest, kann dir versichert sein, dass du in jeder Diskussion über eine Reichtumsobergrenze wissen wirst, was du sagen und antworten sollst.
Eine durchaus wichtige Lektüre unserer Zeit!

[Casey Wright · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is probably the longest review I’ll write.

I obviously agree with the core argument raised in this book—extreme wealth is harmful and unnecessary— but the book itself just didn’t do it for me. It felt pretty basic, like an entry-level take on a conversation any relatively progressive person should already be familiar with.

It lowkey read like an undergrad poli sci paper: well-organized, solid argument, but kinda repetitive and way too safe. I kept wanting sharper critiques and more dramatic examples of ridiculous billionaire spending versus what that money could actually do for people but it never came.

Overall, it’d be a decent book to give someone who’s just starting to question the morality of billionaires, but if you’re already on board, there’s not much new here.

[Anton Ruffen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gott habe ich mich wieder von den Reviews beinflussen lassen. Aber fairer weise muss man sagen, dass die Forderungen im letzen Kapitel etwas naiv und pathetisch sind. So in etwa: ‘wir 99 Prozent können es gegen die 1 Prozent da oben schaffen wenn wir nur fest daran glauben’. Wandel ist innerhalb des Systems möglich usw.. glaube ich nicht.


Nichtsdestotrotz glaube ich das Buch hat große Potenzial als Anleitung für die politische Linke zu dienen, um den Wählerinnen zukünftig wieder etwas bieten zu können. Im Buch geht es zum großen Teil darum ein Klassenbewusstsein herzustellen und ein paar Neoliberale Argumente zu enkräften bzw. Aufzuzeigen ( wie Fische im Wasser). Die Argumente sind in beide Richtungen nicht neu, aber sie sind entkoppelt vom altgedienten linken kampfbegriffen (hinter denen viele Menschen immer noch sovjetkommunismus riechen und reflexhaft in Abwehrhaltung verfallen, sobald man nur von Klassenkampf anfängt). Insofern finde ich es als ersten Schritt, nicht schlecht unterhalb einer gewissen Grenze privates Eigentum und Autonomie im Wirtschaftsleben zuzulassen. Damit kann man vielleicht auch einige liberale grünenwähler abgreifen, von denen ich glaube, dass sie im Herzen sehr solidarisch sind, aber ihre Radikalität einschränken, weil sie dann doch auf Nummer sicher gehen wollen. Bin ich jetzt reaktionär? Vielleicht! Auch wenn ich mich einer linken Revolution anschließen würde, habe ich derzeit viel mehr Angst vor einer faschistisch getragenen Revolution und glaube das in einem demokratischen System, das ernsthaft über Umverteilung spricht anstatt über Migration, diese Gefahr erstmal im Keim erstickt werden könnte. Dann ist der Weg zur linken Revolution vielleicht auch ein bisschen einfacher.

LG

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a bunch of money in the world, and the super rich have much more than their fair share. If we could just take a lot of that money away, we could use it to do all kinds of amazing things. And this wouldn't cause any real problems. In fact, it would be better for everybody, including the rich themselves!

If that kind of story seems plausible to you, you'll probably enjoy this book. Personally, I found it a bit irksome at times. Like, for instance, when the author engages in extended discussion of what should determine the wages people are paid without *once* mentioning the words "supply" or "demand." Or when her discussion starts by talking about how she's only coming after the "super rich," but winds up saying that this category includes pretty much everybody who regularly takes long-distance flights, and we're basically going to have to put a stop to that.

Don't get me wrong, the core idea of the book is an interesting one. And the author does a nice job laying it out in the first few chapters. But I found the lack of serious engagement with economic or philosophical counterarguments frustrating. Robeyns has an annoying tendency to dismiss objections to her view as unserious and distracting without really taking the time to investigate what a reasonable opponent might think. Basically, if you're against limitarianism you're probably a neoliberal shill deluded by fear and greed.

OK then.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 5 out of 5]

A vivisection; this is a live dissection of the currently rotten-to-the-core financial and economic system; the self-sustaining (and self-increasing) wealth inequality is initially hard to fathom comprehensively and makes one wonder why the pitchforks aren't already in the streets; the status quo screams out for a revolution; Robeyns makes her case for capping off wealth stridently; not just a basic income but also a set limit to the accumulation and tribal perpetuation of wealth; yes, once you've reached the wealthy 1% club, co-opting the wealth defence league (lawyers, financial advisors, fiscalists etc.) will exploit any legal loophole to make sure you stay rich; highly recommended reading/listening (the audible format is perfect).

[Shá · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very interesting topic that explores economics in a new way. The basic concept is to take from the rich and give to the poor, but a step further. Allowing everyone to be millionaires by capping how much everyone has. I understand the logic behind this given the state of the world but it seems like pure fantasy. I do not want to be negative about it but the explanation for implementing this strategy was weak. I want to see the good in the efforts being discussed but an argument must be made to get the people in question involved. 

How can SMART goals be brought into the conversation? Much of this was a lot of venting and not enough strategy. I learned some things for sure but not enough to trust that anyone other than the author and a select few could possibly believe in this philosophy. I have a plethora of questions that I am awaiting answers to but have a feeling that they will not come. Those who are supportive of this cause are nothing more than "talk." Who begins the journey if so many people are serious about the initiative? I can only see this becoming government-regulated and not an independent state. Who funds it? Sure, we expect everyone to be decent human beings but I'm envisioning Hunger Games taking place. If the money all cycles back down to the government then that seems more dangerous. 

If there are fewer poor then this wouldn't need to be a discussion (this is not my mindset, I'm speaking in general). But really, who determines the cap? Who determines how much? Do the rich donate the extra so others meet the cap, do they burn the money, or do they spend until they hit the cap? The latter would not apply to people like Gates, Musk, or Bezos, obviously, so that would not work, either. It seems redundant for excess money to be donated. If everyone is "rich," What would be the benefit of service-focused companies? 

This goes back to my frustration with the book. Can we get more ideas about the"how?" 

"I don't know" is not a valid answer when throwing around a topic such as this one. There has to be more thought than what is being listed. What is the process? The idea is to eliminate poverty and discrimination by everyone being "equal'." Great, that fixes the economic part but what about the other aspects that take priority (race, gender, identity)? To claim this idea would fix these problems would be naive. If the privileged boys club put their savings together then they could create the toxic culture that we have today and none of this would have gotten us anywhere. Of course, we would not know what the "rules" are but we have to entertain the possibility of joint accounts being created. Is that allowed? Does it break the law? 

Another annoyance that I have with her is that she has a hermit mindset. Her perspective is that people should eat, sleep, and change the world. She believes that money should not be spent on expensive items. Who is she to tell someone what to spend money on? Even with a cap, no one wants to only focus on daily survival. What a dull life. "If it isn't benefiting the economy then you don't need it." What? Goofy. 

My interpretation quotes, and questions that I gathered: 

- The rich call it "envy tax" since it disproportionately taxes the rich. "If you're focused only on the rich, then you must be jealous." Maybe. But how long have the rich been disproportionately taxing the poor? A huge part of her argument is that the rich don't "deserve" their wealth. I'm not rich but I can't say I agree with this. Similarly, I can't agree that when the rich splurge on something that "normal" people find absurd, they aren't entitled to do so.
- Don't just shout your political opinions. Know 'why' you're shouting about it. The rich try to blend in unless they're around other rich people. 
- Do rags to riches get a pass? Many rich efforts go to their own "charitable" organization therefore back into their pockets. So, how do we avoid this happening even with a cap? She does a lot of complaining about what the rich deserve but does not specify what is considered "deserving." In her mind, no one deserves anything regardless of working for it or inheritance (whew, don't get her started again on that tangent). Ex: There's the rich and the super-rich. One has more than they need and one has more than they deserve. None of these topics include illegal or corrupt affluence. 
- Should the rich be required to "make the world better?" Who determines what "better" means? The government? The rich? The poor? Random selection? Every group comes with confirmation bias. 
- How does monetary gain correlate with happiness and a good/quality of life just because that's her version of it? Similarly, should celebrities be morally required to be role models? 
- How does all of this impact those who do not wish to contribute to society? Living off the government, "trust fund babies," criminals, etc. 
- There's no the US, Latinos make up a 5th of the population but less than 3% of all wealth. African Americans make up 14% and less than 5% of all wealth. No surprise about who the majority goes to. "White people benefit from this racial division of wealth."  What's the alternative, if there is one, to limit extreme wealth and pivot poverty? 
- "As long as you continue to make money then you're supporting a broken system that is unfairly skewed." What??? So because you want to make more money you're contributing to a broken system. What is the solution/fix? Again, overlooked. 
- To say no one is deserving seems harsh and the money isn't rightfully owned. But, she's on to something. If it were, we should see more balance and not just primarily one dominating race or gender. I know I am all over the place with my agreement but there are pros and cons. 
- What about inherited wealth? If there is a cap, does that include giving away funds? If that's not allowed, who gets the extra? Does it fall into a trust? She touches on this, but her solution? No one deserves to be wealthy because they didn't "work" for it. So much for gift cards. =0
- What about the disabled? Then it dives into discrimination territory. Some people have more debt than others. Do they get to keep more money or do they still fall into poverty due to the cap? She barely mentioned the disabled or growing up in poverty but basically stated that it doesn't matter because anyone is capable of making a living. Yet, her examples were Oprah Winfrey and JK Rowling. Wait, what? They aren't disabled. Terrible examples. And, if you're familiar with their rise to fame, you'll see why. Nothing to do with actual poverty. 
- Her blurb about inheritance tax versus bequeath tax is intriguing and I'd have to look into this.   It's very similar to Matthew Desmond's mindset but I find myself agreeing with his perspective more. At what age does the taxation begin? Are young adults capped as well and given a wage? 
- "There is an unspoken wage penalty for being unattractive." Wow. It's likely true but wow. I suppose that no longer matters with this new focus. 
- I agree that CEOs, directors, and senior leaders obtaining more pay is a load of bs. I've always felt this way about entertainers as well. I still do not understand how someone can scribble a bunch of jibberish on a notepad for a few hours, and spout that nonsense to make millions...

I cannot get on board with this "work-to-survive-only" mentality. Ex- "... At some point, you'll have everything a person needs. There's no point in having 20 pairs of shoes." She then goes on to talk about how having a Van Gogh painting is better. Wha! Because you like ancient artwork everyone else should? At least shoes are more useful than a painting you only look at in passing. The logic is understandable but telling people what they should spend their money on based on her own preferences is ridiculous and I'm sure that Van Gogh's painting costs way more than 20 pairs of shoes, ma'am. If everyone gets an "allowance," what's the point of working? You could argue that everyone just makes the same amount for working but what about the nomad who refuses to work? 

My thoughts were very scattered here as I was nodding my head in agreement and shaking it in "wtf do you mean?" I'll leave you with this lovely quote that she has for the rich: If you want to go to/live in space, at least leave your money on Earth." 😂

I have so much more to add/discuss but I'll leave it to reflection for now. 

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Depressing to think this world could exist but never will ❤️

[Annemie Plessers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heel duidelijk dat er een limiet nodig is op de hoeveelheid rijkdom die je kan vergaren!

[Stella Starlight · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dit boek is een aardige aanzet om als burger na te denken over vermogen en arbeidsverdiensten, en hoe de verzorgingsstaat steeds meer wordt afgebroken voor en door mensen met macht en middelen.
Wat ik mis in dit boek, dat zeer terecht grote kritiek levert op het neoliberale gedachtegoed en de wereldwijde concrete gevolgen ervan, zijn concrete stappen die de niet-vermogende burger kan ondernemen om de zichzelf verrijkende elite (over de ruggen van die niet vermogende burgers) af te zetten of te laten bekeren.

Ik denk dat Robeyns gelijk heeft wanneer ze zegt dat opstanden zullen plaatsvinden (en dus niet óf ze plaatsvinden, maar wánneer). Helaas verwacht ik niet dat de rijken en superrijken massaal zichzelf onder de loep nemen om vervolgens uit zichzelf alles dat bij limitarisme hoort in te voeren.

Dus: de rijksten gaan zo door, en dus rest de enorme laag daaronder niets anders dan opstand. Zo zal het gaan (niet dat Robeyns dat beweert, het is mijn eigen conclusie, ik zie de bovenlaag zichzelf echt niet opheffen, op een paar individuele uitzonderingen na zoals in het boek genoemd).

Ik had graag gelezen hoe invloed uit te oefenen op de politiek (word lid van een politieke partij), op vakbonden, in medezeggenschapsraden etc. Zo ben ik lid van een légale onderwijsvakbond die stelselmatig al jaren door de Aob, CNV, PO raad, ministerie wordt uitgesloten van de onderhandelingstafels. Het lijkt mij dat er dan als iets mis met de uitsluitende vakbonden zelf, laat staat met de inhouden en overeenkomsten aan die overlegtafels.

Ik las aardig dus een aardig gedachtenexperiment maar mis na uitlezen ervan het gevoel van 'Dit kan en ga ik NU doen om de wereld meer in die kant te sturen' waardoor ik me nu meer dan ooit overgeleverd voel aan de goedheid en bereidwilligheid van de slechtsten der aarde..

[Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tax the rich, tax corporations.

I agree that there is no value for society in the ultra wealthy hoarding money. The issue I have with this book is how the author thinks we should go about bringing change. We essentially need to shame and use morality on the ultra rich to make the ultra rich and society hold them/selves to accord.

Here is the problem, thinking that people who've made money on the backs of suffering (there is no ethical billionaire) will see and agree that their wealth hoarding is morally wrong.

You can't shame a billionaire and you can't shame the section of society who licks billionaire boots and sadly I don't think that will change.

[Simonh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hoewel ik erg sympathiek sta tegenover de centrale these van dit boek, namelijk het wegbelasten van al het vermogen boven de 10 miljoen euro, vond ik de onderbouwing ervan erg zwak. Daarnaast was het boek niet zozeer een uiteenzetting van het limitarisme, maar eerder een pleidooi om iets te doen aan vermogensongelijkheid. Wat dat doen dan precies is wordt niet heel duidelijk, de aangedragen oplossingen gaan niet veel verder dan "stoppen met het neoliberalisme".

Dan zal ik toch maar doorgaan met accumuleren van kapitaal zodat ik sportauto's, privé-eilanden en kaas kan kopen.

[Sungyena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Important!

[Klejton · Rating 2 out of 5]

The argument presented here is not for what the author calls limitarianism. Limitarianism would posit that people shouldn’t have wealth beyond a certain point (10 million). This argument is never developed or shown how it would actually work in practise (because it wouldn’t).

Instead we get an often moralistic rant against inequality and extreme wealth, not based in any material analysis of the capitalist system. How could one impose an arbitrary limit on a system which can only exist through endless accumulation? The writer wants to keep the logic of the current system intact but somehow imagines a parallel world where things work out differently, maybe with a regulation here and there, we could just save it all. Worst of all, she also likes to pretend that it is the Republicans who are the only billionaire funded political actors in the United States. Ah if only these bad republicans wouldn’t have stopped the regulatory efforts of the noble democrats, everything would be much better!

Just skip this one

[Lizzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mooi pleidooi voor een meer gelijkwaardige wereld. Leuk hoe de schrijfster economie en filosofie/ethiek in dit boek verweeft!

[Andres Felipe Contreras Buitrago · Rating 5 out of 5]

El libro es muy bueno, de verdad que aborda muchas cosas importantes sobre la desigualdad y la crítica al individualismo, me encanta esa idea de abogar por la solidaridad y el bienestar colectivo, hay que ayudar a otros, pero también es fundamental observar que muchos de nuestro problemas son estructurales, como de distinto sería el mundo si mucha de la riqueza de los grandes millonarios de usará para problemas sociales.

La autora comienza, con el problema de la ocupación de la riqueza en el que los problemas sociales están reducidos a 1% de la población más rica, con los años esta desigualdad ha aumentado constantemente, por lo que son necesarios cambios estructurales, que miran más hacia la igualdad, como lo puede ser una educación gratuita y de calidad y que las personas lleven, una vida digna gracias a condiciones dignas laborales y médicas. Son necesarios también cambios desde el sistema fiscal como la mejora de la recaudación de impuestos. Finalmente, es necesario abrazar una ética que propugna limitar la riqueza. Los límites van de acuerdo con los ciudadanos y la política de cada país, es imposible eliminar toda la desigualdad, pero se deben buscar límites hacia estas, la autora no busca eliminar la propiedad privada ni los mercados, lo que se busca es que se aumenten por ejemplo los impuestos a los más ricos algo que ellos mismos han apoyado, reduciendo la desigualdad también serviría para reducir el odio en las clases más bajas. Un aspecto que menciona la autora es que los gobiernos hacen poco con las personas millonarias, estas últimas no tienen conciencia de los problemas que generan y solo dan migajas por medio de la filantropía, la concentración de la riqueza es un problema estructural por ello hay que centrarnos en esos mismos aspectos.
La pobreza, en el primer capítulo, es algo muy visible, como se puede observar en las personas sin hogar, el problema es que la gran riqueza no lo es tanto, un ejemplo de ello es que las mansiones se encuentran a las afueras de la ciudad y amuralladas, en este orden de ideas, es más fácil ver el aumento de la pobreza que el aumento de la riqueza. La desigualdad siguiendo a varios economistas ha aumentado desde la década de 1970, los casos de una persona que viene de ser pobre y se convierte en millonaria son escasos, la mayoría de la riqueza es heredada y esto es aumentada por lo que hay muchas personas tienen ventajas desde un principio, inclusive hay personas ricas por medios ilegales y cleptómanos. Es importante destacar que la riqueza varía según el contexto no es lo mismo ser rico en Estados Unidos que en Europa, muchas personas día a día se van a la cama con hambre sabiendo que muchos de sus problemas son causas estructurales en las que poco pueden hacer, la autora concluye este capítulo en que se deben evitar que los ricos se obsesionen con la acumulación de la riqueza.
El segundo capítulo es claro y es que la pobreza a nivel mundial sigue aumentando, si bien hay logros importantes sobre este término, lo cierto es que muchos datos se usan para legitimar aún más el capitalismo, puesto que algunos datos arrojan que inclusive había menos pobreza en épocas pasadas. Los problemas de los diferentes datos estadísticos y es que ponen un listón muy bajo para medir la reducción de la pobreza, se debería mirar más los indicadores desde ámbitos humanos y no tanto en el ámbito económico, la mejora en los ingresos de las personas pobres es irrisorio es como pasar de ganar un dólar a dos dólares por lo que no es una gran victoria para los pobres. En las que nuevamente las personas más enriquecidas han sido los países desarrollados y del norte global, donde las personas del hogar en menos desarrollada tienen más problemas económicos. Inclusive entre los países más ricos la desigualdad es grandísima, Ah es igualdad también va en aumento, cada vez más personas aumentan su riqueza y los pobres siguen siendo más pobres, inclusive la desigualdad también varía según el género y la raza. Existe por supuesto una segregación según la clase, las personas más ricas acceden a mejores viviendas y mejores servicios como de la educación y la sanidad. Todo ello reducido al supuesto éxito individual en que si las personas triunfan es por ella misma sin tener en cuenta factores externos.
No todas las personas somos iguales ante la ley, es falsa la idea de que somos iguales que los súper ricos, sabe mostrado con la represión sindical, que se benefician más a los grandes empresarios, con la crisis de 1970, surgió el neoliberalismo y con ello todas las ideas que éste trajo como el individualismo, la competencia y la privatización. En todos estos aspectos los más beneficiados fueron los súper ricos. Hay pocas políticas estatales para los pobres, y como la autora es enfática, la riqueza de los ricos no beneficia a los pobres, la riqueza desde arriba no llega hacia abajo, y la desigualdad por supuesto que afecta a la economía, ya que implica, que las personas más pobres no puedan gastar su dinero en otras cosas, inclusive hay personas que defienden esta economía de goteo.
Mucha de la riqueza de los grandes ricos es ilegal e inmoral, las personas ricas evitan todo para pagar impuestos como poner su dinero en paraísos fiscales, inclusive hay personas que tienen riqueza producto de atrocidades del pasado como el nazismo o el esclavismo. Otras personas se han vuelto ricas a bases de mentiras y corrupción, por supuesto que esto último se ve muy común en países corruptos donde la oligarquía es rica mientras el pueblo enfrenta grandes problemas, muchas personas también se han hecho ricas con prácticas comerciales que dañan a los clientes, grandes empresas como Amazon han amasado grandes fortunas a base de la explotación laboral en la que sus empleados no tienen condiciones dignas de trabajo. La evasión de impuestos es algo muy común por parte de grandes empresarios y millonarios y es mucho el dinero que se pierde en diferentes países por esta práctica que ayudarían mucho a causas sociales, también se usan vacíos legales para evitar pagar impuestos en la herencia, y claro, los súper ricos usan presiones políticas para beneficiarse de diferentes leyes, por lo que la mayoría de la riqueza tiene algo de inmoral para la autora.
Personas alrededor del mundo luchen y protesta por un mundo en mayor democracia, se busca una economía más democrática, por ello es importante la libertad de prensa y que las universidades sean independientes y accesibles para todo El Mundo, el problema es que los súper ricos socavan la democracia al obtener la ciudadanía y visa en diferentes países gracias a su dinero, mientras que otras personas como migrantes y refugiados no pueden gozar de esa ciudadanía puesto que no tienen los recursos financieros. Por supuesto que una práctica muy común de destruir la democracia es que los mega ricos y empresarios financian candidatos y partidos políticos afines a sus ideas por lo que una vez esos políticos acceden al poder tienen un trato especial para sus grandes donadores, por lo que hay poca representación en el estado de personas comunes y los hay mal de personas acomodadas, por lo que se hacen políticas a favor de los ricos, también estos últimos compran medios de comunicación para favorecer a sus candidatos y políticas, por lo que las personas ricas no solo acumulan capital económico sino también capital político, en todo esto es que vemos el regreso de ideas fascistas y la eliminación de muchos derechos fundamentales, por lo que a toda costa se debe evitar que las personas millonarias interfieran en la política.
Otro aspecto donde los ricos están impactando mucho es en el medio ambiente como se puede ver en las grandes petroleras que no invierten en energías renovables mientras ganan mucho dinero, por lo que hay un vínculo entre el colapso ambiental y la riqueza extrema, el cambio climático es algo que afecta a todos por igual y grandes empresas que contaminan los había desde tiempo atrás, por lo que son necesarios grandes cambios estructurales dado que los ricos son los que generan más contaminación a consecuencia de su estilo de vida lujoso, el mayor ejemplo de lo anterior son sus viajes en aviones privados, aunque intentan siempre lavarse la cara con una falsa publicidad verde o pagar impuestos que no ayudan a mitigar el cambio climático, muchas veces los ricos son negacionismo del cambio climático o las grandes empresas que contaminan no pagan los daños ambientales que generan. Es necesario que los ricos reduzcan sus emisiones de carbono y no tanto su riqueza, el problema del cambio climático es algo estructural y colectivo y no hay que individualizarlo, tampoco hay que llevar a cabo políticas en que los ricos paguen más por su contaminación puesto que tiene los recursos para seguir contaminando, lo importante es que estas personas de clases altas apoyen la lucha contra el cambio climático y en el ejemplo de ser personas más limpias ambientalmente.
La autora subraya que es necesario el estado y por ende los impuestos para que funcione la sociedad, la peor riqueza, es la que se hereda ya que no es merecida, está atenta contra la igualdad y la movilidad social, en El Mundo laboral también existen desigualdades salariales entre un simple trabajador y los grandes CEO, muchas de estas últimas personas siguen ganando el mismo salario pese a que les vaya mal, un elemento importante para hacerse rico es la suerte, por lo que no todo es cuestión de talento, muchas personas arriesgan sus vidas y tienen trabajos extenuantes y no son bien remunerados, la autora no afirma que haya una igualdad salarial para todos pero si unas diferencias que no sean tan exageradas como las hay hoy en día, como se había mencionado anteriormente grandes empresas se hacen ricas a costa de las condiciones laborales de explotación, hay que mencionar que la riqueza es un esfuerzo colectivo los ricos amasaron su fortuna gracias a otras personas y al mismo estado, algunas personas nacen con ventajas, y como miles de investigaciones han argumentado la movilidad social es limitada por lo que es necesario redistribuir la riqueza, se debe buscar un mundo más justo en el que se ayuda a los de abajo y que tengan mejores servicios como los de salud mental, como la autora concluye, hay suficientes recursos para todos.
El bienestar colectivo es importante, dependemos de otros como seres humanos, el aumento de ingreso hacia los pobres supone un gran cambio en su vida, muchas personas de clases bajas tienen poco bienestar emocional a no poder acceder a diferentes servicios y recursos que les ayuden a su salud mental, el gran exceso de dinero de los ricos podrían ayudar a la mejorar la calidad de vida de muchas personas, un ejemplo de cómo el dinero puede ayudar a las personas más pobres es con la renta básica, la ayuda es para todos, no sé debería discriminar. Por supuesto que hay que mejorar el estado y sus instituciones para que no haya corrupción en el dinero que haya, un relato triste es como niños van a la escuela sin comer mientras otros ricos van al espacio, mientras unas personas están sin hogar, los ricos tienen una vida de gran lujo, por lo que a veces muchas personas hacen el trabajo Del Gobierno y las grandes empresas al ser voluntarios.
La filantropía no debería darse ya que muchas veces esta debería hacerla el gobierno puesto que éste es el que debe hacer sus deberes y es el estado el que debe llevar a cabo políticas contra el hambre, por ejemplo, el problema de la filantropía es que se sirve de la evasión fiscal, y muchas de Estas son solo migajas, y con ello también el estado le da más dinero a estos a su evasión de impuestos. Los ricos lo que deben hacer es apoyar cambios estructurales en los que haya mejores condiciones, y por supuesto los megas ricos deben donar dinero a causas importantes y no solo banales, puesto que la donación de dinero no ayuda a los problemas sociales desde la raíz, una idea interesante de la autora es que un porcentaje de nuestro salario debería ser donado, claro que no es para todos y solo sería para las personas que tengan suficientes recursos.
Los salarios más fuertes y mejores en la clase media ayudan a los ricos puesto que hacen que estas personas gastan más en los productos de los mega ricos el problema es que ha habido un aumento del malestar político a causa de la desigualdad por lo que han surgido partidos populistas, que son populares entre las clases bajas y medias, los ricos también tienen problemas psicológicos a los tentar tanta riqueza, y es que el aumento del dinero en una persona pobre, contribuye mucho a su felicidad, cosa que no pasa con un rico el cual ya tiene mucho dinero y al darle más no cambia mucho lo que hace es que se genere una mayor ambición de tener más dinero por lo que pueda afectar su salud mental, algo que olvidan los súper ricos es la empatía algo muy importante en nuestra sociedad, es fundamental poner límites en la acumulación de dinero puesto que una vida feliz individual es horrible mientras otros sufre.
En el último capítulo encontramos la redistribución de la riqueza donde es necesario el dinero de los súper ricos para muchos problemas sociales, el problema para la autora es que no muchas personas son conscientes del problema de la desigualdad, todavía siguen sumergidos en el sueño de la falsa movilidad social o no son conscientes de cómo las personas ricas tienen tanto dinero, por lo que es necesario un acceso a la información más libre y debates en torno a la desigualdad. El poner límites a la riqueza de los ricos no es abogar por el comunismo puesto que es un ideal imposible planificar toda la economía tampoco conlleva a la abolición de los mercados o la empresa privada, lo importante es criticar el capitalismo, no cayendo en el pesimismo de creer que no hay alternativas puesto que diferentes autores han demostrado que es posible otras alternativas. Es importante la ayuda hacia otras personas, no podemos sobrevivir solos individualmente. Otra idea importante es acabar de raíz con el neoliberalismo que es la causa de muchos problemas como el gran individualismo o la privatización, con ello también hay que evitar la segregación de clase creando espacios mixtos donde converjan ricos y pobres, una idea interesante donde convivan mejor las personas es 1 año de servicio público nacional. Es importante el equilibrio de poder económico como la creación de sindicatos o mayor democracia en los puestos de trabajo. Otro aspecto fundamental es la recaudación mejor de los impuestos y con ello confiscar todo de dinero sucio, finalmente para la autora es enfática en eliminar la riqueza heredada o que haya más impuestos en la sucesión, la propuesta es clara, debemos reconocer el problema y empezar a actuar desde lo que podamos para un mejor futuro.

[joshlyn javier · Rating 4 out of 5]

eat da rich or at least limit how much they eatin

[Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with limitarianism in principle, so I wasn't expecting this book to bring forth any earth shattering revelations. Nevertheless, I found myself feeling let down by a rather surface exploration of some concepts and arguments Ingrid Robeyns puts forth to persuade others who may have reservations about wealth limits. For instance, I thought there should be pages dispelling the myth of trickle-down economics, given how often it's used to justify business friendly policies. Chapter 7 (There's So Much We Can Do with the Money) posits research and innovation as a field which would benefit with increased government support made possible by taxing the rich; here I thought an examination of the track record of private versus public backed research in STEM would be most appropriate. Instead, what readers got was a few lines on how crucial innovations were historically funded by governments because researchers could work without being pressured to contribute to short-term profits.

There is a segment towards the end of Chapter 7 where Robeyns attempts to counter the argument that a limitarian economy would disincentivize workers. She suggests that there are other reasons why the super-rich would continue to work even with increased taxes; such as status, networks and prestige. My view is that the accumulation of wealth is a pre-requisite for all three, so I'm not convinced at all by this. Later on in the chapter she mentions how teachers regularly go the extra mile for students out of intrinsic motivation. My view is that teachers and are billionaire CEOs are very different types of people who self-sort into their respective professions, and it is nonsensical to compare their motivations for performing well at work.

There seems to be an attempt to persuade the rich to the cause through the inclusion of Chapter 9 (The Rich Will Benefit, Too), which lays out the psychological and emotional harms of holding on to excess wealth. Robeyns implores readers to care about the wellbeing of the super-rich as much as we should for any other social class, which comes across as incredibly tone-deaf when past 100+ pages have been about how they exploit workers at every opportunity, undermine democracy and burn down the planet. No thanks. I'll take my uncaring, unempathetic self to the front of the crowd with my pitchfork.

A lot of the criticism of this book lies in how its policy recommendations seem impossible to achieve at this moment. I think Robeyns addresses this when she called for the dismantling of neoliberal ideology as a pre-requisite to building a more equal economy. Changes in policy and institutions cannot happen without changing societal values. This is why with all its flaws, I still found value in this book; because it invites readers to challenge how we view the rich.

[Cami · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating read! I went in already favorable to the idea of placing a limit on wealth, but Ingrid Robeyns covers many details that I had no framework to explore sufficiently on my own, such as where such a cap should be placed. At first, I was surprised that she put it so "low," at around $10 million. But then she explained how easy it is to underestimate just how big certain numbers are, especially when we don't write out all of the zeroes. $10 million looks and feels a lot less significant than $10,000,000.

The one thing that I wish Robeyns had addressed or explained in more detail is how wealth measured in assets might be applied to people who aren't rich. For instance, with housing prices as high in certain areas as they are, it is no doubt a privilege to own your home. But is a family considered to be worth a million dollars because their house is five times as expensive now as it was when they first bought it, when they don't plan to sell that home for profit? In other words, is a house really that expensive of an asset when losing it would upend your entire life, forcing you to move out of the area and lose your job, because you can't afford the skyrocketing rents?

This would be a bit of a digression, I admit, since the wealth limit of $10 million isn't affected by this question. If your family has millions of dollar in addition to your home's resale value, then you're probably doing OK. More than OK. But I'm curious about how economists view assets such as houses for people who don't use their single home as a commodity but rather as an essential roof over their heads. And what does it say about us as a society that homes have become commodities with major commercial value rather than items as essential (and ideally as inexpensive) as food and water? Honestly, maybe I should look into a book about the housing crisis and the rising costs of living next, if it doesn't make me feel too hopeless.

[Hanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Een pleidooi voor meer ethiek en fatsoen in ons economische systeem. Greed is not good, en het tegendeel blijven beweren is bullshit. Het neoliberalisme holt de brede welvaart uit, maakt de planeet kapot en concentreert vermogen in de handen van een klein clubje superrijken, die vaak nog eens belastingen ontwijken. Dat is niet goed voor de maatschappelijke cohesie. Het is ook niet houdbaar.

Een paar cijfers uit het boek:

- Tussen 1978 en 2021 zijn de beloningen van Amerikaanse CEO’s met 1460 (!) procent gestegen, terwijl het salaris van de gemiddelde werknemer met 18 procent toenam.
- Sommige CEO’s krijgen 399 keer zoveel betaald als de doorsnee werknemer.
- Tussen 2020 en 2022 namen het inkomen en vermogen van de rijkste 1 procent dubbel zoveel toe als die van de overige 99 procent.

De regulering van private markten is sinds de jaren 80 teruggeschroefd en de rijken hebben daarvan sterk kunnen profiteren. Opbrengsten zijn steeds meer privaat, maar de risico’s worden vaak wel collectief gedragen. (Weet je nog, de financiële crisis van 2008?)

Dit boek stelt een alternatief voor. Een beetje ongelijkheid is helemaal oké, dat motiveert mensen, maar er is een bovengrens nodig. Want het is niet omdat steenrijk zijn legaal is dat het ook ethisch is. Ja, sommige mensen werken harder, lopen risico’s of hebben grote verantwoordelijkheden en die mogen dus gerust meer verdienen. Maar geen enkel mens heeft een vermogen van een paar miljard nodig, of kan met enig fatsoen beweren dat hij/zij dit ‘waard’ is. Kunnen we een ethische grens definiëren? Hoe doen we dat?

Dit boek geeft goede argumenten waarom iedereen er wel bij zou varen het anders aan te pakken. Ook de multimiljardairs zelf

[Dilek Sayedahmed, PhD · Rating 5 out of 5]

Person 1: Do you know how America’s class system works?
Person 2: America has a class system?
Person 1: Yes, that’s how it works.

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Robeyns addresses crucial questions:

- Who are the individuals shaping global fiscal rules?
- Who influences the world's political and economic ideas, guiding what states and governments believe they can achieve?

The men (and the occasional woman but only within the same income bracket and close circle of Sheryl Sandberg) at Davos and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are the same individuals who repeatedly ask whether everyone is better off than before. Yet they consistently avoid a more pressing question: why were the gains from globalization distributed so unequally, and who made those decisions? This question is conspicuously absent from their discussions. For WEF members, inequality is simply not a priority.

This is precisely why Robeyns' book is so important.

✨✨✨✨✨

Rich philanthropists always seek out strategies for fixing poverty that rely on markets, and never ask any questions about the structural causes of those problems and inequalities, or consider more effective ways of addressing them. — Anand Giridharadas.

🤸🏻‍♀️ Let's delve deeper, allowing this frustrated economist to once again pour her heart out for her readers:

If I Hear Another “But This Is Communism” as a Criticism, I Am Going to Scream

The claim that limitarianism is essentially communism is both amusing and deeply disheartening. It’s amusing because it doesn’t take an economics degree to understand that we don’t need USSR-style communism to eliminate extreme wealth concentration. It’s disheartening because it reflects a fundamental confusion: communism is an economic system with significant political implications, while limitarianism is a moral principle that guides the design of our economic and social institutions, as well as our personal decision-making. Economic limitarianism doesn’t require a centrally planned economy. Instead, it involves implementing a set of economic measures, none of which entail central planning—you’d still have markets, private companies, and private property. So, relax.

Dismantle Neoliberal Ideology

We must dismantle neoliberal ideology, which promotes technocratic solutions to problems, positioning them as beyond democratic debate, rather than advocating solutions emerging from democratic deliberation.

Neoliberalism’s view of human nature reduces us to mere investors in our "human capital," consumers, or workers selling our labor. It neglects other aspects of our identities: activists, organizers, engaged neighbors, or members of political book clubs. To counter this, we need a different perspective—one that sees ourselves, others, sentient beings, and the Earth holistically. We must reclaim our roles as participants in communal practices and as those who shape democratic processes, as political beings. This means reclaiming both politics and democracy.

Philanthropy Is NOT the Answer

I’m just going to say it: I’m tired of seeing people post quotes from Bill Gates and others like him about climate change activism. Climate scientists have already pointed out that we know what needs to be done, and the technology is available—the problem lies in the lack of political will.

Instead of highlighting Gates and the likes for climate solutions, let’s focus on civil and environmental engineers, like Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. Given his expertise, he is far better equipped than Gates to judge what is possible. Professor Jacobson has developed a plan for transitioning to 100% wind, water, and solar power—without relying on emerging technologies. I highly recommend his books.

The most impactful chapter in his book is “Philanthropy Is Not the Answer,” because, frankly, philanthropy often functions as a wealth-defense strategy. It’s not the answer, whether you like it or not. Any wealthy donor should ask themselves: Am I exploiting workers? Have I polluted the environment or engaged in harmful production processes? Have I bent the law to minimize taxes? If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then your philanthropy is tainted.

The one genuine example of philanthropy that’s earned the right to speak on potential solutions is Patagonia’s Yvon Chouinard (see his memoir Let My People Go Surfing). Patagonia has never hired anyone from the wealth-defense industry to find ways to avoid paying taxes. There are no university libraries or wings of the Met emblazoned with Chouinard’s name, nor are there philanthropic foundations using fiscal paradises in Bermuda. Instead, Chouinard and his family paid $17.5 million in taxes when they transferred their stocks to a nonprofit foundation.

Reduce Class Segregation

We must take seriously the idea of a national civil service requirement for all. Debra Satz, a professor of philosophy at Stanford University, recently defended the proposal for a mandatory year of national public service for all U.S. citizens aged 18 to 25, with exemptions for those serving in the military or with underlying conditions that make it impossible. Participants would maintain public land, work with the elderly or in education, or engage in other public projects.

Satz argues that democratic citizenship requires not just the right to vote and the duty to pay taxes and obey the law, but also a willingness to engage in democratic processes—something that requires public-mindedness, which has weakened considerably in recent decades. Because there are very few compulsory collective activities that bring together different socio-economic groups, people increasingly lack a basic understanding of one another. Jury duty is one such institution, but it’s time-limited, many will never serve, and it may come much later in life. A universal service requirement could help address the growing partition between social groups.

[Donaldinho14 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting book, but thoroughly depressing.

Without international co-operation across borders, very little will change as the super-rich can just avoid tax and move their wealth off shore. What can be done?

There are one or two ideas here that are implementable on a national level, such as proper progressive income tax and a universal basic income which could be part funded by inheritance tax.

But who is going to make these arguments? When even left-of-centre governments with landslide majorities are too timid to attempt a grown up discussion, never mind implement some progressive redistributive policies, it's easy to see why people who are left behind are tempted by the populists.

As for the book itself, the arguments get a little repetitive, even though I agree with almost all of them. But the arguments of the left can often sound like whinging or hectoring and the author descends into these at times.

I believe that the arguments would work much better in debates, lectures or newspaper op-eds than in the long form found here.