Search results
Apr 8, 2024 · There should be no upper limit to wealth as long as the economic pie is growing and the poor are getting some of it. It doesn’t matter if the rich are getting much richer—they create wealth. Why should we care about the top, the upper limit, that you discuss in your book? Ingrid Robeyns.
Jan 29, 2024 · Nov. 14, 2023. Why should society limit extreme personal wealth? Excess wealth keeps the poor in poverty while inequality grows. Research shows that the lion’s share of the gains that...
- Ingrid Robeyns
Jan 30, 2024 · Your book highlights a number of wealthy people who share your horror over the rising maldistribution of our world’s wealth. Are the numbers of these concerned wealthy people growing enough to help make a real difference?
Apr 1, 2024 · “After a decade of analyzing and debating extreme wealth, I became convinced that we must create a world in which no one is super-rich—that there must be a cap on the amount of wealth any one...
- Causes
- Purpose
- Example
- Goals
- Ownership
- Effects
- Issue
- Philosophy
- Quotes
- Significance
- Academic career
These reasons for redistribution are strongest when the poor are very badly off, as in the cases Singer describes. But there will always be some reason of this kind as long as redistributing assets increases the well-being of the poor more than it decreases that of the rich. These reasons for eliminating inequality are also based on an idea of equa...
The possibility of making the poor better off does not seem to be the only reason for seeking to reduce the worlds rising level of economic inequality. Many people in the United States seem to believe that our high and rising level of inequality is objectionable in itself, and it is worth inquiring into why this might be so. This inquiry is importa...
Second, if inequality, in itself, is something to be concerned about, we need to explain why this is so. It is easy to understand why people want to be better off than they are, especially if their current condition is very bad. But why, apart from this, should anyone be concerned with the difference between what they have and what others have? Why...
1. Economic inequality can give wealthier people an unacceptable degree of control over the lives of others.
If wealth is very unevenly distributed in a society, wealthy people often end up in control of many aspects of the lives of poorer citizens: over where and how they can work, what they can buy, and in general what their lives will be like. As an example, ownership of a public media outlet, such as a newspaper or a television channel, can give contr...
Economic inequality makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create equality of opportunity. Income inequality means that some children will enter the workforce much better prepared than others. And people with few assets find it harder to access the first small steps to larger opportunities, such as a loan to start a business or pay for an advanc...
4. Workers, as participants in a scheme of cooperation that produces national income, have a claim to a fair share of what they have helped to produce. What constitutes a fair share is of course controversial. One answer is provided by John Rawls Difference Principle, according to which inequalities in wealth and income are permissible if and only ...
Peter Singers powerful argument for altruistic giving draws on one moral relation we can stand in to others: the relation of being able to benefit them in some important way. With respect to this relation, to matter morally is to be someone whose welfare there is reason to increase.
But the objections to inequality that I have listed rest on a different moral relation. Its the relation between individuals who are participants in a cooperative scheme. Those who are related to us in this way matter morally in a further sense: they are fellow participants to whom the terms of our cooperation must be justifiable. In our current en...
These are not just objections to inequality and its consequences: they are at the same time challenges to the legitimacy of the system itself. The holdings of the rich are not legitimate if they are acquired through competition from which others are excluded, and made possible by laws that are shaped by the rich for the benefit of the rich. In thes...
T. M. Scanlon is Alford Professor of Natural Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Civil Polity at Harvard University.
May 6, 2024 · Robeyns, who has studied how people perceive wealth, opens with a provocative proposal — governments should set a wealth limit on the order of 10 million euros or US dollars per person.
People also ask
Should wealth go to the people with the least?
Should we limit wealth?
Should the richest 1% have a wealth limit?
Should we be working towards a world without extreme wealth?
Is there an upper limit on wealth?
How does a person's wealth depend on a society?
Mar 13, 2024 · More concretely, we should be working towards a world without extreme wealth. That view is called limitarianism – a moral and political upper limit to how much personal wealth any one individual can have.
