In a world where the number of poor people increases, the pace of accumulation of wealth is accelerating in a small group of humans, in what is known as “obscene wealth.” This term is no longer just a description of material success, but rather turned into a profound moral, political and social challenge, which is the idea from which the Dutch political philosopher Dick Timer starts in its radical presentation. Timer asks: “Everyone wants to solve the problem of poverty, but can wealth constitute a problem as well, and should (a threshold of wealth) be placed as there is a line of poverty?”
In his thesis and writings, Dick Timer argues strongly in favor of the necessity of restricting wealth, stressing that “what many people do not realize is that obscene richness is a problem that requires a clear confrontation and radical solutions, the forefront of which must be a maximum of wealth.”
Dick Timer is an assistant professor of moral and political philosophy at Dortmund Technical University of Dortmund. His research is based on concepts of distribution justice, economics ethics, climate change, and moral responsibility towards future generations. Timer holds two bachelors degrees and a master’s degree in philosophy, in addition to a Bachelor’s degree in religious and theology from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, before he obtained a doctorate for his thesis “thresholds and borders in the theories of distribution justice” under the supervision of the philosopher Ingrid Robins, and he also worked as a visiting professor in many Dutch universities.
In May, his first book entitled “Some people are very rich”, which searches for the true meaning of equality and how to achieve it, and he is currently working on preparing his second book on the inheritance tax, the topic that Timer believes that he collects all the questions of major philosophy. In his book, Timer refutes the established ideas about the effectiveness of the markets and the sanctity of private ownership, and introduces a new vision of equality that exceeds the numbers, focusing on the moral and social dimensions of economic variations.
Numbers tell the story of inequality
To clarify the size of the gap, the Dutch journalist Caroline Crivanger, through the “Scientias” scientific platform, cite shocking numbers; Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, has reached nearly $ 200 billion. To bring this image closer, this amount is equivalent to what a person can earn $ 250,000 a day since the birth of Christ! In 2020, the pandemic was only rich, as the 500 richest people in the world added a total of $ 1.8 trillion to their wealth, bringing their total wealth of 7.6 trillion dollars. In contrast, more than 800 million people live on less than two dollars a day.
Where is the problem?
Timer acknowledges that inequality in itself is not necessarily unjust, as it can sometimes be justified by talent or efficiency. But the problem begins, from his point of view, when the link between the effort and the reward is interrupted, and the gap between the rich and the poor becomes this huge size, and it turns into an ethical issue that threatens the cohesion of societies.
Timer warns of the unequal political influence practiced by the wealthy, pointing to their donations of millions of euros for political parties, which makes political influence in the hands of the few, which is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of democracy that is based on equal sound and influence.
An invitation to curb the wealth
In his thesis, Timer calls for a maximum wealth, not only to control the disparity, but to invest this funds in vital services for society such as health care, education, and infrastructure. It also connects the lifestyle of the wealthy wealth and its devastating effect on the environment, as they contribute an inappropriate manner in carbon emissions, which makes imposing environmental taxes on them an additional necessity.
However, is there social support for such calls? Timer feels an increasing enthusiasm in society for criticism directed at multinationals, but he touches hesitation at the same time, and this appears in fascination with the space race in which Jeff Bezos is participating.
Also, the idea of determining the ceiling of wealth raises many practical questions: Is the limit 10 million? Or 100 million? Where is the separation line that the wealth turns from an individual achievement to a general problem?
Society itself seems divided. In the Netherlands, a study showed that 80% of people do not see the necessity to impose an end to the wealth, but this percentage changes remarkably when the question is asked in a different form: “Do you prefer that money go to the wealthy or to public services?”, Only then many tend to the second option.
Equality is a global and transitive crisis for generations
In his general discussions, as happened on the “Back House de Zvaykhir” platform, Timer expands his analysis, stressing that inequality is the main problem facing societies such as the Netherlands, where the gap between the rich and the poor worsened to include all aspects of life, from education to housing, and from the labor market to health care.
And not only on the national borders; At the world level, men have more than $ 105 trillion than women, or nearly 4 times the size of the American economy. Wars also threaten the lives of the most vulnerable groups, while hundreds of millions live in extreme poverty, and one billion children do not get one of their basic needs of food, medical care or education.
This gap prompted the philosopher Ted Hondrich to say: “If you visited the aliens of our planet, I would have thought that there are different types of humans.” This is shown in the varying average life expectancy of approximately 30 years between countries such as Nigeria and Chad (53 years) and countries like the Netherlands (82 years).
In addition, this disparity goes beyond our current generation, as the options that we now make, from climate change to economic and political stability and the level of pensions, constitute the world in which future generations will live, because power is in our hands, not in their hands.
Although awareness is increasing in the danger of wealth concentration in the hands of the few, the actual procedures are still limited. Timer notes that the path towards legalizing an end to the wealth is still long and filled with political and social obstacles, but he believes that fighting this battle has become an inevitable necessity to preserve justice, stability, and the future of democracy.