> [!summary] Progressive Summary > Most extreme wealth comes from luck, historical injustice, or unfair trade and tax rules. Therefore, people with extreme wealth are morally obligated to give it back to society. # Structured Notes ## Definitions ## Chapter Summaries ### Chapter 1 - How Much is Too Much? 3 rebuttals against the argument from envy - it is often argued that those who advocate for a cap on wealth are motivated by envy - the response is: - there are many wealthy people who advocate for the same - surely they are not motivated by envy - if envy is such a bad thing, then the best way to remove the cause of envy is to reduce inequality - the arguments should be critiqued on their soundness, not on the emotions of the person espousing them There are 3 distinct limits: - riches line - the line above which anyone would be able to live a flourishing life, and which any additional money would not add to one's standard of living - ethical limit - the maximum amount of money one can own on moral grounds - political limit - the limit on a person's wealth that the state should use to guide its social and fiscal systems > In an ideal world, perhaps we could all have half a dozen holidays abroad every year, everyone could choose from multiple attractive jobs or perhaps choose not to work for money at all, and all of us would be very rich. But that is a fantasy. It is not our world. Our world is one where ecological resources have been dramatically depleted. It is one with vast inequalities that are widening at an alarming rate. It is one in which, every day, people are going to bed hungry and worrying about problems that they can’t solve, because their causes are structural. In this deeply unjust world, I am advocating a political limit of, roughly, ten million per person (and because I say “roughly,” it doesn’t matter whether this is in euros, dollars, or pounds; we should focus on the general principle and remember that we are discussing the order of magnitude, not the precise figure). > it strikes a balance between what different moral and political considerations tell us is the maximum level. There is the upper limit above which a fortune starts to become utterly wasteful, since it could be better used to rectify climate-related injustice and to meet urgent human needs. There is the upper limit that political equality demands. The upper limit that reflects what we know about the incentives that inspire very productive people to keep contributing to the economy. The upper limit that would protect the well-being of the super-rich themselves—to help them overcome their damaging addiction to capital accumulation, and give their children a chance of growing up without the harms caused by their parents’ excessive fortunes. If we work out an average figure based on the upper thresholds suggested by these considerations, we arrive at an upper limit of ten million. Yet at the same time, let us not forget that limitarianism is not about a number; it is about all the reasons why a world without extreme wealth concentration would be better for us all. ### Chapter 2 - It's Keeping the Poor in Poverty While Inequality Grows 2 arguments used to shut down discussion of inequality: - Our focus should be on poverty, not inequality - Trickle-down economics John Quiggin (Zombie Economics): > “History shows that, no matter how favorably the well-off are treated, there will always be arguments to suggest that they should receive even better treatment.” ### Chapter 3 - It's Dirty Money The money of the super-rich is often the legacy of past crimes (Nazism, slavery), stolen (kleptocracy), or maintained through financial engineering. The author uses the term "wealth defense industry" to refer to the army of lawyers, accountants and bankers who help the super-rich sequester their wealth from taxes. Those working in the wealth-denfense industry benefit enormously themselves. Most of a government's bureaucracy is used to tax the poor, not the super-rich. Many listed companies' profits are made on the backs of exploited labour. ### Chapter 4 - It's Undermining Democracy ### Chapter 5 - It's Setting the World on Fire ### Chapter 6 - Nobody Deserves to be a Multimillionaire The difference between people is often a matter of luck, not talent. Even if talent accounted for 90% of our success, the 10% role that luck plays often determines whether we get a certain job or not. Because of the winner-take-all structure we have in our society, the consequences of luck are enormous. Arguments often used to defend extreme inequality: - People who save and work hard should be able to transfer their wealth to whomever they want - **Reply**: There are multiple stakeholders and points of view. From the POV of the receiver, they do not deserve to receive such an inheritance. From the POV of the giver, they should be able to give their money to their children. It's about finding the right balance between all these values. - People should have the opportunity to pursue their dreams - **Reply**: Yes, they can pursue the opportunity to be a CEO or top athlete, but we are just limiting the financial reward that comes with it. Also, by limiting the opportunities of a very few at the top, we are expanding the opportunities of many people at the bottom ### Chapter 7 - There's So Much We Can Do with the Money ### Chapter 8 - Philanthropy is Not the Answer ### Chapter 9 - The Rich Will Benefit, Too ### Chapter 10 - The Road Ahead # Quotes