From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… the share of global wealth held by the poorest … would rise from just 2 percent today to 30 percent, while the proportion held by billionaires would fall …”

Could tackling climate change and levelling inequality go hand in hand?

The world can raise income, reduce inequality and limit global warming, according to an ambitious roadmap presented this week by economists in France. Making the case for a radical transformation of economies and lifestyles, they call on rich countries to slow growth, phase out fossil fuels and tax the wealthiest to help poorer countries fund development and mitigate the effects of climate change. 

Issued on: 06/06/2026 – 06:56
By: RFI

Published on Thursday by the World Inequality Lab, the Global Justice Report presents a vision of a fairer world built within the planet’s limits.

…

Under the plan, the share of global wealth held by the poorest half of the world’s population would rise from just 2 percent today to 30 percent, while the proportion held by billionaires would fall dramatically.

…

The report also calls for a reduction in working hours in wealthier regions, alongside efforts to equalise incomes both within and between countries.

According to its authors, this would mean near-zero per capita growth in richer economies, while poorer regions would grow faster to close the gap.

Taxing the rich

To finance the transition, the economists propose the creation of a “global justice fund”, initially funded through steep taxes on the wealthiest individuals – up to 20 percent annually on billionaires’ fortunes and income tax rates of up to 90 percent.

…Read more: https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260606-could-tackling-climate-change-and-levelling-inequality-go-hand-in-hand

The full report is available here.

Socialists like the global justice project and world inequality council have no idea how money works.

Taking money off billionaires wouldn’t redistribute wealth, it would destroy the wealth. Money only has value because billionaires hold some of it, and use that money to create the goods and services which give money its value.

Poor people and countries are not poor because of circumstances, they are poor because of the bad choices they make. Giving broken nations money without fixing the problems which caused those nations to fail doesn’t lift their income, it just destroys the value of that money.

There are plenty of example of nations which started making better choices and thrived, like the Asian tiger economies Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, at least until the Chinese started throwing their weight around. There are nations which started making poor choices and fell or are busy falling, such as Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Europe. And there are nations which are caught in the borderlands between prosperity and ruin, depending on which direction they choose next. None of this has anything to do with wealth redistribution between nations.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The core idea—”just take money from billionaires”—oversimplifies how wealth, capital, incentives, and economic dynamics actually function.

It’s a common framing in reports like the one from the World Inequality Lab, but real-world evidence shows significant practical problems with aggressive annual wealth taxes (e.g., 20% on billionaires) or 90% top marginal income rates as primary tools for funding massive global redistribution.

Billionaire net worth is mostly illiquid capital—ownership stakes in companies (stocks, equity in startups/tech/firms), not stacks of cash. This wealth:

Represents past value creation (innovation, scaling businesses that employ millions and serve billions).

Gets reinvested into productive assets: R&D, factories, infrastructure, employee compensation via equity, new ventures. High savings/investment rates at the top channel resources into capital formation.

Fluctuates with markets; taxing unrealized gains or annual wealth can force asset sales, disrupt operations, or reduce future investment.

Confiscating or heavily taxing this doesn’t magically create equivalent sustainable income/wealth for others without affecting the underlying productive capacity. Historical attempts at very high rates often led to avoidance, evasion, capital flight, and lower reported income bases.

A “Global Justice Fund” at >10% of world GDP would be enormous (~$10+ trillion/year today). Funding it primarily via wealth/income taxes on the rich assumes static wealth creation, minimal evasion, perfect global coordination (unlikely amid US-China tensions, etc.), and effective spending in recipient countries (governance quality varies widely; aid effectiveness has mixed track records).