As things are now, there's really only two ways wealth is ever going to be distributed differently—voluntarily, or by force.
It would be quite noble and generous of the 26 billionaires if they were to just give up their riches (some have pledged to do so upon their deaths), but I don't believe the 3.8 billion people referred to here, along with the rest of the world, can reliably expect to see their own personal economic positions improved this way.
Which means force. Well, the billionaires have ways of protecting themselves, or influencing outcomes. Isn't that what is always said of them? So, the likelihood that an entity large enough to mandate, and then enforce it, like the government of a sizable, prominent country, isn't that likely, either.
And if it were, the most likely scenario would be that some of the most vulnerable among the billionaires would end up having their wealth distributed among the remaining, or that the wealth would go to a few others, who in turn would become billionaire's themselves. I'm not sure if that would be a better way or not.
The problem is this. Even with equal opportunity guaranteed (something we find hard enough to do by itself), equal outcome does not exist in a free and open society. Some people are simply better at earning and accumulating wealth than others. Some are more fortunate. Some have connections. It's the way things work. A restructuring of the world's wealth, if left to its own, would result once again in some having tremendously more than others.
Which means, there would have to be limits placed on compensation and how much could be owned. For that to happen, someone, or some organization, would have to make it so, and then be able to enforce it. Governments would probably end up being those authorities, and would probably do it through taxation around 80% or even higher. They'd have to do it on capital gains, more than they would earned income, since the wealthy earn less that way than they do through gains.
Then, the government would take it's share to pay this even larger bureaucracy to ensure collection is taking place, and then oversee the distribution of the remaining funds to wherever it was deemed better to go (which would also need to be determined).
As I said at the beginning, it would be great if these folks with the $1.4 trillion in wealth would just voluntarily give up most of it. Not because they had to, but because they wanted to. A giving back for the bounty they had earned. The problem is, voluntarily doing something as a group doesn't naturally happen. There would need to be discussions about it. Someone would have to present the idea, perhaps in an editorial, or a proposal on social media. The idea would have to be advanced, talked about, and emphasized as much as possible over an extended period of time. And in the end, the decision would still be left up to the individual billionaires.
So, the only way which has probable and more of an immediate outcome is force.
Now, this $1.4 trillion of estimated worth is not, however, all of the wealth that these billionaires likely have control or say over. The stocks they own in the companies they've founded or invested in provide them with access to more than just what can be attributed to them. I would imagine in a scenario where we're distributing the wealth more fairly, any wealth creating ventures, properties or enterprises that weren't solely or wholly owned outright should also be figured into the equation, would it not?
And of course, why stop there? The latest Forbes List of the world's billionaires is from March, 2018. Then, there were a total of 2,208 billionaires, worth $9.1 trillion combined. Might as well go after that, and the companies they control, too.
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
As things are now, there's really only two ways wealth is ever going to be distributed differently—voluntarily, or by force.
It would be quite noble and generous of the 26 billionaires if they were to just give up their riches (some have pledged to do so upon their deaths), but I don't believe the 3.8 billion people referred to here, along with the rest of the world, can reliably expect to see their own personal economic positions improved this way.
Which means force. Well, the billionaires have ways of protecting themselves, or influencing outcomes. Isn't that what is always said of them? So, the likelihood that an entity large enough to mandate, and then enforce it, like the government of a sizable, prominent country, isn't that likely, either.
And if it were, the most likely scenario would be that some of the most vulnerable among the billionaires would end up having their wealth distributed among the remaining, or that the wealth would go to a few others, who in turn would become billionaire's themselves. I'm not sure if that would be a better way or not.
The problem is this. Even with equal opportunity guaranteed (something we find hard enough to do by itself), equal outcome does not exist in a free and open society. Some people are simply better at earning and accumulating wealth than others. Some are more fortunate. Some have connections. It's the way things work. A restructuring of the world's wealth, if left to its own, would result once again in some having tremendously more than others.
Which means, there would have to be limits placed on compensation and how much could be owned. For that to happen, someone, or some organization, would have to make it so, and then be able to enforce it. Governments would probably end up being those authorities, and would probably do it through taxation around 80% or even higher. They'd have to do it on capital gains, more than they would earned income, since the wealthy earn less that way than they do through gains.
Then, the government would take it's share to pay this even larger bureaucracy to ensure collection is taking place, and then oversee the distribution of the remaining funds to wherever it was deemed better to go (which would also need to be determined).
As I said at the beginning, it would be great if these folks with the $1.4 trillion in wealth would just voluntarily give up most of it. Not because they had to, but because they wanted to. A giving back for the bounty they had earned. The problem is, voluntarily doing something as a group doesn't naturally happen. There would need to be discussions about it. Someone would have to present the idea, perhaps in an editorial, or a proposal on social media. The idea would have to be advanced, talked about, and emphasized as much as possible over an extended period of time. And in the end, the decision would still be left up to the individual billionaires.
So, the only way which has probable and more of an immediate outcome is force.
Now, this $1.4 trillion of estimated worth is not, however, all of the wealth that these billionaires likely have control or say over. The stocks they own in the companies they've founded or invested in provide them with access to more than just what can be attributed to them. I would imagine in a scenario where we're distributing the wealth more fairly, any wealth creating ventures, properties or enterprises that weren't solely or wholly owned outright should also be figured into the equation, would it not?
And of course, why stop there? The latest Forbes List of the world's billionaires is from March, 2018. Then, there were a total of 2,208 billionaires, worth $9.1 trillion combined. Might as well go after that, and the companies they control, too.