Linda McQuaig argues against extreme inequality
“I want to be a billionaire so freaking bad… I want to be on the cover of Forbes magazine standing next to Oprah and the Queen.” If you don’t recognize these lyrics to the catchy song Billionaire by Travie McCoy featuring Bruno Mars you’ve probably been in a cave for the past three months. The song’s popularity is testament to our culture’s fascination with the lifestyle of the rich and famous and the possibility of limitless consumption.
But other than looking at billionaires with occasional envy most of us do not give billionaires much thought in terms of how they are affecting our lives let alone how they are weakening our democracy and impeding our ability to tackle some of the greatest problems we face today. This is what award-winning journalist and bestselling author Linda McQuaig hopes we will be more conscious of by the time we finish reading her new book The Trouble with Billionaires which she co-authored with Neil Brooks.
During an interview McQuaig displayed the same composure she exhibits as a writer appearing almost unemotional about the issues at hand. But this detachment clearly does not stem from apathy. Rather it stems from a strong confidence that her arguments — backed up by thorough research — are often nothing short of common sense that transcends ideological boundaries.
For example when asked to explain why she feels inequality is the underlying issue from which many of our other social problems stem she responds by first clarifying that it is not inequality she opposes but extreme inequality.
“Inequality in moderation is not only desirable it is vital to the health of a capitalist nation. High levels of concentration are not compatible with capitalism” she says.
Full of colourful visuals and anecdotes the book is as much about empowerment as it is about spreading the wealth. Its basic premise is that the more you empower people and the more broadly you spread that empowerment the more likely it is that ordinary people will be able to succeed at fighting for the things that matter to them. This concept is undeniably sensible and yet saying so out loud quickly gets you labelled a socialist if not a communist. Why?
“It is symptomatic…. The wealthy not only own the media and thereby control the political agenda they also exert their power in many other ways that are not so obvious including lobby groups and think-tanks” she says.
So powerful is the media’s influence that we not only condone the right to acquire such extreme wealth we admire and praise those who do for their talent ambition hard work and dedication. Substantial financial rewards we are told are necessary to attract and retain society’s most talented members. We have been brainwashed to believe that without such outrageous salaries CEOs baseball players actors and the like would not be incentivized to work at full capacity.
Anticipating counter-arguments on how billionaires benefit society the authors dedicate an entire chapter to why Bill Gates doesn’t deserve his fortune. You’re likely thinking: If Bill Gates the admirable philanthropist doesn’t deserve his wealth then certainly others are even less deserving. Well you’ve just named the title of the following chapter.
But despite the book’s strong contention of the current inadequacies of our taxation system McQuaig is a pragmatist. She’s not advocating for a complete overhaul.
“You don’t need a revolution to bring about the changes I’m talking about you just need a different form of capitalism” she says.
Toward the end of the book McQuaig and Brooks propose some specific measures that need to be taken to move in the right direction. The most ambitious is reviving the estate tax that was abolished 40 years ago. They propose that this tax would only affect the wealthiest one or two per cent of Canadian families and the revenue collected could go to developing a trust fund that would allow every child in Canada to receive $16000 on their 16th birthday to be used exclusively towards their education.
“Not only would this benefit people financially it would change the nature of the country” McQuaig says. “Think about what that would do to the feelings young people have about their place in the community.”
