It seems that in the world today, the 1% are escaping their responsibilities. They cannot get away with only philanthropy – billionaires should pay "a fair share" of taxes, which means higher marginal taxes on wealth. At the Davos summit, Rutger Bregman referred to the 91% income tax under Eisenhower.
Others will counter that the Laffer curve needs to be taken into account: at some marginal tax level, tax avoidance will become an issue. Sure, but we also got technology to counter this issue that Laffer didn't have at his disposal.
So naturally I'm in favour of taxation, for the simple reason that income inequality should be limited in order to maintain social equality and an inclusive economy to which each can contribute and in which each can consume. This is even a condition for growth.
Yet I don't agree with the 1% rhetoric. Instead, I believe that as organizations, enterprises, and people acquire wealth over certain thresholds, their influence expands for good reasons. The market is also some form of democracy, and as with other forms, like the electoral meritocracy, it has its pitfalls. However, with great power comes great responsibility. The accountability of the rich should go beyond paying taxes. They have an exemplary function and should contribute to society in a positive way, and this is a matter of morals but also of monitoring. The 1% should work together with the state to provide for the 99%.
Then I don't see a clear distinction between a national bank that takes money out of the economy to increase interest rates, and a single person or organisation that does the same. Then I don't see a difference between schooling projects funded by a government agency, or by a committee nominated by the 1%. Of course, it is not just that a very small number of people are a millionfold better off than a very large number of people, and when I say that they should provide for them, I mean that they should. In the same way, the people can accept or overthrow a king. The 1% should deliver or go down. What you pay to them is just an additional tax, and you should expect value for money, just as you expect from the State.
The real issue is uncontrollable wealth that distorts social life: an elite of 10% to 20% that enjoys the pleasures of this world based on exploitation of the ones below. They should be taxed more, because we expect the morals, but less the actions that we expect from the 1%. Let's call this group the 19%, and let them not believe they are the 1% in the making. They will never be if they don't occupy a natural monopolist position, as Google, Facebook, Microsoft in the digital world do, and a limited number of car manufacturers and petrochemical companies in the manufacturing and utility sector. The latter are identifiable, the former are anonymous but perhaps more pretentious. We can just take the yacht.
