For the most part, the Feb. 29 article on the new provincial budget uses the usual dichotomous framework for budget reporting: is it a “spending” budget or a “fiscally responsible” budget? However, this is a false dichotomy, inherent in neoliberal thinking, which hides from us the existence of a third option. To the writer’s credit, he alludes to this third way in the last four paragraphs: “missing from the budget is a tax on wealth (rather than revenue) or windfall profits.”
Preventing and/or taxing extreme wealth in order to reduce economic inequality is the key concept of limitarianism. Belgian-Dutch economist and philosopher Ingrid Robeyns explores this idea in an even-handed and accessible way in her new book, Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth. She argues that not only is economic inequality unjust and harmful to the poor, but it’s also harmful to democracy, the environment, and ultimately to the super-rich themselves.
She also points out that when we focus only on poverty and not on extreme wealth, we ignore half the equation. I would also argue that framing government budgets as a choice between fiscal responsibility and social spending pits people with low/no income against the (disappearing) middle class.
Let’s enlarge the conversation. Money produces diminishing returns. Rather than allowing a small segment of the population to accrue additional millions or billions that produce no real and necessary improvement in their quality of life, that money could be used to create a stable society where all are able to meet their basic needs and even flourish. It’s entirely possible for government to both avoid a deficit and ensure that everyone has the means for a decent life.
Janet Pollock
Oak Bay
