Yahoo Canada Web Search

Search results

1. • • One argument for limitarianism is that superriches can undermine political equality. The other reason is that it would be better if the surplus money that superrich households have were to be used to meet unmet urgent needs and local and global collective action problems. A particular urgent case of the latter is climate change.
     www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19452829.2019.1633734

     What, if Anything, is Wrong with Extreme Wealth?

2. People also ask

   Should we limit wealth?

   • If we want to limit wealth so that we can address poverty, invest in public infrastructure, protect democracy, end climate destruction and eliminate undeserved riches, then where should we draw the line? There are two limits to wealth that we should consider: one political, the other ethical. They should be set at different levels.

   Opinion: No more billionaires? Let's be more ambitious. No one needs

   www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-01-29/billionaires-extreme-wealth-cap-rich-inequality-taxpayers

   See all results for this question

   Why is extreme wealth concentration a problem?

   • Extreme wealth concentration limits governments’ abilities to invest in public goods, such as education, health care and climate-change mitigation. And meritocratic promises are endangered when extreme wealth inequality is transmitted from one generation to the next.

   How rich is too rich? - Nature

   www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01276-1

   See all results for this question

   Should the richest 1% have a wealth limit?

   • It is a fresh take on a much-needed discussion at a time when, for example, the richest 1% of the US population owns about as much wealth as the bottom 90%. 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.

   How rich is too rich? - Nature

   www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01276-1

   See all results for this question

   Is there an upper limit on wealth?

   • Ultimately, you come to the conclusion that there has to be an upper limit on the amount of wealth that can be possessed. That’s my argument. There are important values like the survival of the human species on Earth.

   Why We Need Limits on Extreme Wealth - Current Affairs

   www.currentaffairs.org/news/2024/04/why-we-need-limits-on-extreme-wealth

   See all results for this question

   Would limiting wealth accumulation make societies better?

   • To bolster her case and persuade detractors, Robeyns argues that limiting wealth accumulation would make societies better overall.

   How rich is too rich? - Nature

   www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01276-1

   See all results for this question

   Should wealth go to the people with the least?

   • If you’re a billionaire, each additional dollar is virtually meaningless, whereas if you are a person who is earning $2 a day, each additional dollar is really important to you. So, as wealth is created, that should make us lean towards favoring it going to the people with the least. Yes.

   Why We Need Limits on Extreme Wealth - Current Affairs

   www.currentaffairs.org/news/2024/04/why-we-need-limits-on-extreme-wealth

   See all results for this question

3. www.currentaffairs.org › news › 2024Why We Need Limits on Extreme Wealth - Current Affairs

   www.currentaffairs.org › news › 2024

   • Cached

   Apr 8, 2024 · Why We Need Limits on Extreme Wealth. An introduction to limitarianism, and why there should be an upper limit on how much money people can accumulate. Ingrid Robeyns is a professor at Utrecht University, where she specializes in political philosophy and ethics.

4. inequality.org › must-we-limit-the-wealthys-wealthMust We Limit the Wealthy’s Wealth? - Inequality.org

   inequality.org › must-we-limit-the-wealthys-wealth

   Jan 30, 2024 · Why should we be letting our richest few do that grabbing at the expense of so many? The “limitarianism” tag that Robeyns attaches to her bold egalitarian perspective can at first glance come across as overly obscure.

5. inequality.org › research › excessive-wealth-has-runExcessive Wealth Has Run Amok—This Must Stop

   inequality.org › research › excessive-wealth-has-run

   Mar 6, 2024 · Why Excessive Wealth Matters. Academics and nonprofit activists have long talked about income inequality—and, more recently, have begun to address the more significant issue of wealth inequality. But reducing wealth inequality is not just about increasing the wealth of those with too few assets.

6. www.latimes.com › opinion › storyOpinion: No more billionaires? We can be more ambitious than ...

   www.latimes.com › opinion › story

   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...

   • Author: Ingrid Robeyns

7. www.nature.com › articles › d41586/024/01276-1How rich is too rich? - Nature

   www.nature.com › articles › d41586/024/01276-1

   • Cached

   May 6, 2024 · Extreme wealth concentration limits governments’ abilities to invest in public goods, such as education, health care and climate-change mitigation. And meritocratic promises are endangered when...

   • Author: Lucas Chancel

8. www.thenation.com › wealth-cap-limitarianism-davosThe Case for Capping Wealth at $10 Million | The Nation

   www.thenation.com › wealth-cap-limitarianism-davos

   • Cached

   Jan 17, 2024 · There is one reason we should limit inequality that is independent of its harmful consequences: Extreme wealth is undeserved.

9. www.theatlantic.com › family › archiveIngrid Robeyn's 'Limitarianism' Makes the Case for Capping ...

   www.theatlantic.com › family › archive

   • Cached

   Apr 1, 2024 · Robeyns proposes two upper limits on personal wealth. Most countries with a solid social safety net should bake a 10-million-euro (approximately $10.8 million) cap into their social and fiscal...