Once again, I turn to a highly idealistic view of the future. Some people would probably read it as a nightmare. But if a large group of people has put effort into drafting a plan, why not present it.

The discussion centers on a Global Justice Report compiled by the World Inequality Lab. Forty‑five authors contributed, plus numerous researchers who helped build the global inequality database. The report aims to offer a global vision for the current century.

Starting with the main conclusions, the report identifies the need for change in three areas. First, rapid decarbonization of energy systems. Second, a shift toward sufficiency — meaning a substantial reduction in working hours and material footprints, along with changes in consumption habits and land and forest use. And third, a rapid reduction in inequality in income, wealth, and power.

The plan to eliminate inequality is likely the most provocative. If carried out, the wealth of the world's poorest half would increase fifteenfold, while the share held by the billionaire class would shrink dramatically. Around 90 percent of the world's population would see their income double while working roughly half as much as they do now.

It sounds impressive — working half as much and earning twice as much. But nothing comes without cost; everything comes at someone's expense.

Socioeconomic justice is addressed on two levels. The first is material accounting: working hours, education and healthcare, energy systems, greenhouse gases, land use, forest cover, and temperature levels. The report envisions keeping global temperature rise below two degrees by the end of the century. Reduced working hours would come primarily from productivity gains driven by technological development, plus changes in employment structure.

Labor would shift from manufacturing to services, healthcare, and education. By the end of the century, average annual working hours per person should fall to around 1,000, compared with 2,100 today.

The second level is financial accounting — and this is where many economists, not to mention the wealthy, would likely turn purple with anger. The report examines income and wealth scales both between countries and within them, and also proposes progressive tax rates. By 2100, the suggested average monthly income per person would be €5,000 in all countries.

Currently, the range is €290 in sub‑Saharan Africa and €2,590 in North America. Europe's average is €3,590, and the global average is €1,410.

Global education spending per person would rise to €8,400 annually, compared with today's range of €210 to €4,140, and €2,237 in Europe. Healthcare spending would rise to €14,000 per person, compared with today's €110 to €8,300.

The report proposes compressing the income scale into a range of one to five. The top 10 percent's share of total income would fall from 50 percent to below 20 percent. The middle 40 percent — the "middle class" — would see their share rise from 36 percent to about 44 percent, and the bottom half's share would rise from roughly 15 percent to about 37 percent.

The wealth‑redistribution plan is even more radical. The global bottom half's share of total wealth would rise from two percent to 30 percent, while the billionaire class — 0.001 percent of the population — would see its share fall from six percent to 0.05 percent. In other words, a hundredfold redistribution of wealth.

The report proposes global wealth and income taxes. The wealth tax would depend on the size of one's assets and reach 20 percent for billionaires. The global income tax would peak at 90 percent. Both taxes would apply to one percent of the world's population, based on multiples of the global average income.

Up to seven times the global average income, there would be no tax. At ten times the average, the tax would be five percent; at twenty times, 20 percent. Beyond that, up to five thousand times the average income, the tax would reach 90 percent. As incomes equalize, the tax would gradually decrease and eventually disappear.

Applied to current incomes, 99 percent of the world's population would pay no tax; 0.4 percent would pay five percent; and 0.001 percent would pay 90 percent — a group whose combined income last year was €2.3 trillion.

Applied to Europe, 6 percent would lose income, eight percent would see income rise up to 20 percent, 58 percent would see increases of 20–100 percent, and 28 percent would gain more than 100 percent compared with current income.

Regionally, the biggest winners would be sub‑Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia, where 99 percent of people would see income gains of 100 percent or more. The biggest loser would be North America, where 14 percent of the population would see income decline.

The report also proposes creating a Global Justice Fund and a World Sovereign Fund, pooling 10 percent of the world's capital assets. The money would be used to compensate countries for environmental, education, and healthcare costs. The largest expense would likely be reparations for colonial‑era and environmental damage.

In short, this is a proposal for the future that, by all indications, is not destined to be realized. The principle of reducing inequality is sound, but the measures and scale are another matter. Inequality has been rising, with political consequences — and the potential, if tensions grow, to blow the lid off, threatening state stability.

Looking around the world, one finds plenty of countries with enough wealthy individuals who could quickly consign such plans to the trash heap — hiring private armies if necessary. But every researcher has the right to speculate, and the calculations are certainly interesting.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!