"I can do whatever I want with my money; it's mine." Well, that's not exactly true. It's yours, yes. But you can't do whatever you want. The more you have, the clearer it becomes that you've accumulated it thanks to the collective work of many other people, thanks to the existence of infrastructure and public services, thanks to a legal system that ensures the proper functioning of the economy. Therefore, you have to pay taxes; you have an obligation to contribute to maintaining all of this. You can't just go about your business, without taking into account the environment that has favored you. Economist Thomas Piketty states: "You are not alone in the world, and you can't simply say, 'This money is mine.'"
Piketty recalls, for example, that from 1930 to 1980, the United States had an average tax rate for high-income earners of 82%. These were the decades of greatest economic and social progress in the United States. That social contract – those who have the most, contribute the most – began to break down with neoliberalism – the public sector is the problem, the market the solution – which Trump now takes to the extreme while attacking globalization – the free movement of goods and people – from an authoritarian and populist ultra-nationalism.
The Frenchman Piketty, the author of Capital and ideology, says that we cannot do whatever we want with our money in conversation with the American philosopher Michael Sandel, author of The tyranny of merit, where he warns about the arrogance of meritocratic ideology: the rich think their success is exclusively their own merit and that the excluded are also their fault; in neither case do they take into account the starting position and circumstances, even the factor of luck or bad luck.
The conversation between Piketty and Sandel forms the book Equality (Ed Debate). They are two authors in search of a system that guarantees freedom and individual initiative alongside equal opportunities and a commitment to the common good, and which at the same time—especially in Sandel's case—takes into account people's need to identify with the group, to belong to a collective identity.
Who doesn't want to own a place to live? Who doesn't build an identity (I am this, I am like this, I belong to this or that group)? We all also want to be happy, usually through love, friends, family, and making those around us happy. This triple aspiration (property, identity, happiness) is universal, and through it we aspire to make a place for ourselves in the world. The triad makes sense, but it must be satisfied in balance. Too much wealth (property) can ruin the rest. An extreme obsession with identity is also harmful. Too much happiness (an excess of naive idealism) can keep you from touching the ground.
From an economic and philosophical perspective, Piketty and Sandel argue that greater equality leads to greater general prosperity. They note that increased equality has gone hand in hand, above all, with the universalization of education. Therefore, they warn that higher education will increasingly be reserved for those who can afford it. Removing the education and healthcare sectors from the profit economy is seen as a competitive advantage because it generates equality and, therefore, opportunities for wealth and progress. Above all, it is Piketty who emphasizes the combination of decommodification and redistribution. Meanwhile, Sandel calls for greater respect and more educational investment for the decent work of technical workers, that is, for vocational training (VT). He considers it insulting that an investment fund manager earns five thousand times more than a teacher or nurse. In addition to minimum wages, Piketty proposes setting maximum wages and giving workers a say in company decisions.
Both warn that the solution cannot be national, but global, in both fiscal and environmental matters. And immigration? Expel migrants or let them drown? "After two thousand years of civilization around the Mediterranean Sea, is this the best solution we've found to regulate human flows?" asks Piketty.
