Marlene Engelhorn says that when she inherited her grandmother’s multimillion-dollar fortune in 2022, she “wanted to be happy about it.”
“And I couldn’t be,” the Austrian heiress told As It Happens host Nil Köksal. “I was angry instead … because I knew it was really unfair, and there was no reason for me to get this that I could really justify.”
Engelhorn has long campaigned for greater taxes on the wealthy in Austria, including an inheritance tax. But since the government won’t redistribute her wealth for her, she says she’s asking the people do it.
Engelhorn is giving €25 million ($36.5 million Cdn) — which she says is the vast majority of her inheritance — to a committee of Austrian residents tasked with using it to fight wealth inequality.
“I am only wealthy because I was born in a rich family. And I think in a democratic society of the 21st century, birth should not be the one thing that determines whether or not you’re gonna get to lead a very good life,” Engelhorn said.
There is a solid counter argument here (to play devil’s advocate). This is what a right wing American would say to this:
See, we don’t have to tax the rich, they’re so generous. It’s more efficient to let them have their money and donate it directly to causes. The federal government is so bad at allocating wealth, reducing taxes so more people can be like her is the way to go.
If the person above is not wealthy themselves, the following thought to this is Well, when I’m inevitably wealthy because of how great I am, I don’t want the government taxing me so I can be like her.
Then they pat themselves on the back for being so ((in an impossible future)) generous.
It’s worth thinking about how to counter this argument.
People have conscious and unconscious biases.
They are prejudiced and can’t allocate money objectively. This woman is directing the use of this money even though that may not be the best use of the money.
When you look at this on a macro scale, what is the system we have for allocating resources across an entire country? Government.
Is it perfect? No, but it doesn’t change the fact the most efficient and objective means we have is government.
In short, I don’t want a system where a huge racist can accumulate vast wealth and society has the prevailing view that this racist will be altruistic through some mystical force.
It’s important to think about the counterargument, I agree.
To counter your counterargument: it’s not a good argument on many levels (scope, allocation, distribution mechanism, effect). The main reason is that this sort of charity doesn’t improve the core problem of low(er) social mobility. The opportunity to pursue self-development/self-fulfillment should not be tied to the whimsical act of a better-off person but presented to everyone as equal as possible - through common goods and services. The impossible future is impossible due to vastly different prerequisites. The person’s “greatness” will never be seen, as most likely they will never be presented with the opportunity to display it.