I spent years of my career worrying about inequality and wealth, and I still do. I remain concerned about tax abuse, secrecy, and the toxic consequences of the denial of resources to those who need them, which many of those with wealth deliberately promote, claiming that this is the natural consequence of people's relative worth, when that measure of worth is just the outcome of an economic hierarchy of definition that they have constructed.
Exposure to wealth did, however, lead me to several conclusions.
The first is that wealth is just a measure. It is an entry in a ledger. It is an estimate. Most of the time, it does not represent money or nearly as much spending power as the figures imply. It is the consequence of another of those hierarchies of definition, in this case, those that have been fabricated by accounting at the behest of those that profession thinks it serves.
The second, which flows naturally from the first, because that first conclusion shows that much of what we call wealth is in fact more akin to myth than it is to fact, is that power is the real problem that we face when we talk about those with wealth, or rather, the abuse of power is the issue.
There is good reason for distinguishing wealth and power, although they are obviously related. That is because it is entirely possible for wealth to be used benignly. As an obvious example, the nineteenth and twentieth-century Quaker families that controlled some of the UK's very largest companies, including the Cadburys, the Rowntrees, the Frys, the Clark family of eponymous shoe fame, the Barclays, and many others commonly associated with some major railway companies, all appeared to achieve this goal. They were, in general, good employers. They used their wealth for social purposes when they controlled these companies. The legacy of their approach to wealth is still to be found in some of the charitable foundations that they created, many of which I have had dealings with, and all of which appear to be motivated by genuine concern for the common good. Wealth can, then, be benign.
But sometimes it isn't. We know that too. That can even be seen in the charitable foundation world. I have noted here of late the destructive influence, as I see it, of the Rockefeller Foundation on both medicine and education, rooted in an ideology created in the early twentieth century that sought to concentrate power in the hands of an elite, which Rockefeller thought had the right to set the terms of governance for society, and which deliberately tried to deny opportunity to those of differing views or backgrounds. There have been other foundations with not dissimilar roots, mainly, but not exclusively, based in the USA, where, over my career, I can say I have had similar concerns, and where their involvement has rarely delivered beneficial outcomes.
And then there is the Tony Blair Institute, of which I need say little more, except to suggest that it is true to Rockefeller and the logic that his foundation embraced. Blair and his backers embrace the idea that society should be divided, that those with wealth should have power, and that others should be left to do what is required of them.
This is when wealth and the power it delivers become toxic. And we saw the consequence of that in Northern Ireland last night. Elon Musk, who appears to fund the activities of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and his toxic branch of far-right politics, intervened following a terrible attack in Northern Ireland, claiming that this was racially motivated when at present there is no evidence of that, and by so-doing fuelled stresses within a society where political extremists have often resorted to violence. There was trouble on the streets, as Musk appeared to demand, the result of which must be a spreading fear in the migrant population in Northern Ireland, many of whom serve the community through its NHS.
As a reporter from the Belfast Telegraph said last night when interviewed by Alex Thomson on Channel 4 News, (and I stress that I am quoting from memory), “There is no situation in which Elon Musk gets involved which is the better for it.”
She was right. Elon Musk, more than anyone, now typifies toxic power. Supposedly, the world's richest man, if you believe the myths of accounting, he is using the resulting influence to breed fear, violence, division, mistrust, and destruction within our societies in a way that he must know can only result in genuine harm arising and the destruction of well-being.
Trump, of course, shares this characteristic. The House passed legislation to approve his $70 billion migrant expulsion programme in the USA yesterday. At the same time, he was nominating his former personal lawyer to be Attorney General, and what that lawyer has persistently demonstrated is his contempt for the law unless it serves the purposes of Donald Trump. This, too, is power turned toxic.
Throw into this whole scenario the fact that there is an ongoing war in the Gulf promoted by Benjamin Netanyahu, in which Trump is now a continuing, but seemingly reluctant, participant, apparently unaware of how he can exit a situation that he clearly regrets creating, and it is apparent that toxic power of the sort that Netanyahu has created by capturing a state, in the same way as Putin has, is having devastating consequences for the world.
These events, and others, leave me muted, deflated, and dispirited this morning. I am lucky enough, as far as I know, not to suffer depression, but I can certainly get knocked down by events, and those becoming apparent at this moment are doing just that. And why not? Why shouldn't the naked abuse of power affect me? In fact, if you're not affected by it, why not?
The point I make, however, is that it is not wealth per se that is the problem that we face. I undoubtedly agree that the wealth of the top 0.1% in the world is out of control and needs measures to manage it, including effective taxation, governance, and accountability, when at present so much of it appears to be beyond the reach of any of these underpinnings of a successful society. But the threat that it poses is not created by its existence, but by the abuse of power that it enables.
Wealth, I reiterate, can be benign, even if it appears that so much of it has the propensity to turn toxic. But it is that toxicity that represents its real threat. Wealth can be used for the common good, but it would now rarely seem that the capture of power by wealth has this benign outcome.
So, what does that mean? My suggestion is that a fixation with the taxation of wealth alone is not going to solve the problems that toxic wealth is creating within our society. That is, firstly, because much of this wealth is, as I note, the creation of accounting and economic conventions that attach dramatic numbers to it, but which do not result in the creation of capacity for redistribution, as many would seem to desire.
For example, Thomas Piketty's new report on global justice suggests that there should be a 20% global wealth tax on top of a 90% income tax. If this were to be applied to Elon Musk, who has wealth that must now be approaching $2 trillion or more, the tax demand might be $400 billion a year. But SpaceX only has total revenues of $18 billion a year and has yet to make a profit. The capacity to pay this tax, which Piketty and his colleagues appear to think exists, is not there.
You can seek to redistribute the supposedly fantastic numbers attached to wealth if you wish, but nobody can live off the resulting redistributed accounting myths when they are nothing more than a set of numbers created by what might be fairly described as false measures. In other words, tackling a great deal of wealth will not solve the problems that the wealth in question creates through inequality, and it is, then, power that is the issue requiring attention.
I would tax the income and gains from wealth at much higher levels than are now charged, and explained how in the Taxing Wealth Report, which was a deliberate and pragmatic approach to this issue that could raise more revenue capable of redistribution than anything that those who promote wealth taxes can dream of. But, much as I believe in those measures, if relative power is left with the wealthy, this taxation solves little or nothing because the wealthy would still be left with the opportunity to influence outcomes in our society in ways that are deeply toxic, as Elon Musk is doing.
What do we need then?
We start with demands for transparency, accountability, and governance, and we apply this right across the financial sector, where at present most of these characteristics are notably absent, with this being most apparent when providing information to people with average levels of wealth, who are usually kept in the dark about what is going on in the world around them.
Secondly, we need to come up with measures that challenge these hierarchies of power by reinforcing our democracy. That is why we need proportional representation. That is why we need to prevent politics being influenced by donations. That is why the power of think tanks needs to be controlled, and their funding transparency and accountability need to be clear. All of this is because we need to put people back in charge.
Thirdly, perhaps we need to think beyond taxation. Much as I am a fan of taxation, and I am, because it is the single most powerful instrument available to a benign government to shape the society for which it is responsible, maybe we need to go further. Instead of proposing unworkable taxes, which it seems to me many of those promoting wealth taxation are doing, we need to create taxation systems where liabilities can be settled through the diminution of power.
This means making payment by transfer of ownership. So, if you want to apply a 20% wealth tax on Elon Musk, don't ask him to pay it. Simply ask him to transfer his shares. You don't even need to go through the process of proving value in that case. All you need to do is transfer ownership, although that isn't always easy.
Then place those assets in genuinely accountable funds. These funds may not have money right now because SpaceX hasn't, but if markets are right, they have the potential for future income streams. We have to live with the fact that this is the best we can get our hands on.
And, in the case of those private corporations that have ceased to be microeconomic entities because their actions have macroeconomic consequences, we need to change the power structure of the corporation. Companies were not created to be our masters. Society permitted the creation of limited liability entities to enable the pooling of communal capital for communal benefit. Primarily, in the mid-nineteenth century UK, which pioneered this development, they were created above all else to deliver the railway revolution by creating infrastructure for our society.
We have lost sight of that. We now let the corporation be used to enclose private wealth for the gain of an individual. The SpaceX share structure is the perfect example of that. All the power of the company remains with Musk. And, in a world genuinely interested in the well-being of all, that would not be permitted. Constraints on the influence of any one person over a company of significance should be created and enforced.
This is how we challenge power. Tax is important, but it is not enough. We have to go much further. If, as the US Constitution says, all people are born equal, we must treat them as such, never treat the corporation as superior, and never let it be used to create that superiority. Power has overreached itself, and that overreach is the problem that we now face.
We saw that in the streets of Northern Ireland last night.
Now we need to do something about it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I watched Gary Stevenson’s video on Sunday. He kept repeating that the government has no money and should not borrow more. Gary sounds like a Neoliberal apologist when he speaks in these terms.
I understand that he considers the Labour Party, the biggest and best chance for economic change. This should be the case but is certainly not the case now, and Andy Burnham is another subsumed in Neoliberal ideology.
You are spot on about the voting system and we need proportional representation now.
The powerful and wealthy find it more difficult to manipulate than under two party , both the same, as we have in the UK.
I admire Gary for his success, dedication and desire to help make the UK a fair place to live.
I just wish Gary would listen to yourself and Steve Keen. Now that would be a heady brew!
“I watched Gary Stevenson’s video on Sunday. He kept repeating that the government has no money and should not borrow more. Gary sounds like a Neoliberal apologist when he speaks in these terms.”
Thatn is my sense, too.
He said he is now a lobbyist. Who for?
And I would talk. His ‘team’ won’t let him.
You have hit the nail on the head here – this really resonates with my personal experience of philanthropic wealth. Wealthy “do gooders” don’t seem capable of collaboration. They have their own ideas of what is needed and then impose it rather than listen to communities who are crying out for investment but need it provided in a different way. Genuine philanthropy would respect democracy otherwise it becomes another expression of unequal power. So called “corporate responsibility” lives within this space and functions as what Mazzucato called “common good washing”.
Much to agree with
That’s an impressive list of 19th century industrialists and philanthropists using their wealth well.
In a discussion about wealth and power we should acknowledge that today the wealthiest and most powerful organisation is HMG. They repeatedly fail to use their powers for the benefit of legal British residents and their power keeps growing creating even greater inequality between them and the power of the people to live their best lives.
But ask why is that? Is it because it has been captured?
It is not government that is inherently wrong.
Captured government is.
“Nil carborundum!”
”Noli illegitimi carborundum!”
Might the disturbing but remediable efforts of the powerful to diminish regular people be a consequence of democracy/controlling decision making processes being effectively removed from regular citizens?
E.g. Choice of Pariamentary candidates, ginormous political donations/bribes etc.
Yes
I’m with you on this and would add obscene levels of pollution to the power & influence these individuals wield.
This topic is covered in “Limitarianism” in which the author Ingrid Robeyns discusses the societal and structural changes necessary to capture and distribute wealth as it is generated, ie pre-distribution, and, on tax, suggests that governments determine a level of wealth necessary to live a good life and confiscate anything above that on death. Draconian perhaps but a good start!
It is indeed difficult not to get depressed Richard<p>
Our politics are now utterly infiltrated/dominated by money and so many politicians bought and sold by vested interests – including the faction running Labour, Tories – who have got away Scot free with billions in corrupt covid contracts, and Farage/Restore who have foreign billionaires giving them millions. Then there are the foreign lobbyists buying politicians – and possible collusion with security services both domestic and foreign – who don’t like the thought of anything approaching real democracy.<p>
BBC and mainstream and social media – reinforcing all this<p>
This must be why there seems to be no appetite among political parties for banning ‘donations’, 2nd ‘jobs’, conflict of interest lobbying by MP’s, or for PR voting, or bribery for honours.<p>
The 70% of people who are alienated and apparently think politicians are ‘in it for themselves’ are not wrong. But the fact that this leads many of them to vote Reform – to ‘try something different’ leads us to despair even more.<p>
We have to hope that the 70% of people who would vote’ anything but Reform’ will save us from the worst<p>
We have to do more than ‘anything but Reform’
We havbe to do ‘betetr than this shitshow’
How do we tackle those such as Musk who has reportedly little income, they instead borrow against the capital gains of their shares to do new investments? eg https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ddt-IYLVQsU?t=27&feature=sharet
I would suppose a capital gains tax would be necessary in these situations?
I think that the ideas covered in “Limitarianism” by Ingrid Robeyns are well worth exploring further. She outlines how excessive personal wealth enables individuals to exert power to distort the democratic system for their own ends.She argues that a maximum limit should be determined democratically just as we have an agreed minimum wage ( but sadly no absolute minimum income).This minimum was opposed by those with vested interests as would be a maximum but individual wealth is not simply a private matter it has consequences for society as Richard argues so well in this blog and therefore society should have more influence over those who use their wealth for malign ends.
Technically there is a minimum income – actual income is topped up by Universal Credit, or what used to be called Income Support. Or for pensioners there is pension credit. Sadly they bth result in an income that is insufficient to live on properly.
Once upon a time, it was bread and circuses that kept the populace compliant. I fear that now it is the ballot paper and a pencil.
You may be right
But I think bread and circuses are still in play
As wealthy actors increasingly use their wealth to gain political power by supporting far-right movements in the UK, some institutions are beginning to recognise their vulnerability. The recent BMJ article makes this clear: https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj-2026-823665?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email. I am less clear why the article refers to the Greens alongside Reform, as they are very different political forces.
Apparently both are ‘populists’ which is totally lazy characterisation and untrue of the Greens.
Equating the Greens with Reform is the latest smear tactic of the ‘centrists’.
This brings to mind Peter Turchin’s concept of the wealth pump, given that monetary wealth is a proxy for power. If you (and others) have not encountered it before, it’s a useful framework.
For me, this power inequality is to do with under taxing the rich. I mean, if they are that wealthy that they can fund political parties or fund their own pet hatreds and prejudices, they cannot be trusted with so much money. For too long, they have benefited from being seen as wealth sharers/creators, people who are ‘rational’ and somehow wise. They have not proven to be so in my opinion. Cutting their tax rates so much has given them too much leverage, it is time to look at this again.
Its not a period in history I have studied but the idea behind the US Anti Trust legislation that excessive economic power is a bad thing is worth reawakening.
I wonder how we can restrict the ability of people either to become excessively wealthy or use that wealth to amass power.
Clearly a ban on politicians and political campaigners receiving funds from abroad? Banning the owners of some business’s eg tobacco and gambling from diversifying? Requiring ‘think tanks’ to declare their fundong?
There is much to learn from Roosevelt in that era
The ‘them versus us’ attitude has to change.
The selfishness of ‘I’ has no place in communties having shared values, working towards common goals, where “we” stands for unity rather than division.
Those that are inciting chaos, confusion, and violence should face appropriate sanctions and justice.
I am sure you have seen the attached piece from the Guardian today. I was wondering if either you or one or more of your agents were involved with the analysis? I also wondered if you had been asked to “sign” or otherwise indorse it?
The reason for asking is by reason of recognition by the the media etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/10/economists-maths-growth-doomed-strategy-un-agencies-political-leaders
I was not involcved – and not asked.
Why? No one wants to be associated with an MMT economist – so I am not asked by anyone.
What are they all frightened of? Or have they all internalised neoliberalism and its deliberate constraints?
Look, it’s simple.
The rich know what works for them – they continue to rule because having money is what is important to them, so they feather their nests. They suffer from Pleonexia, and can’t help themselves. As Fredric Bastiat said:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Bastiat may have been talking about the State in this quote and its authority to tax because he also said that the state is a fiction because it enables others to live at the expense of everyone else. But AI sums Bastiat like this:
‘Bastiat’s quotes continue to resonate, emphasizing the importance of protecting individual rights and critiquing the misuse of law for personal gain.’
By AI’s reckoning, current governments have failed miserably. Is there a Frederic Bastiat question to be posed?
What is it?
The Frederic Bastiat Question to me is ‘How can/should the State balance the needs of individuals with other groups of individuals to create a fairer society?’. In actual fact, you could replace ‘state’ with ‘markets’.
Bastiat is a man of extremes to me. On one hand he is wary of the State and in favour of the primacy of the individual; on the other, he seems to deplore greed and power begat by collusion and secrecy and the abuse of law. In one sense, he is totally out of date – there is more money in circulation now than in his day, and central banks are more active?. We have also seen that the freedom he advocates given to rich individuals turned into a form of rule that they wish to impose on others which seems totally at odds with his liberal vision of what freedom is. His concerns to me at least predate and are relevant to the post-Thatcherite world we live in, which as you point out today, has produced nothing really in terms of improvements at scale for societies who have embraced them.
As you know, I am deeply sceptical about Liberalism. It’s faith in human behaviour is naive. It has trouble realizing that freedom is not just ‘freedom to’, it is also ‘freedom from’ and certain groups have to be – in the name of freedom – made unfree. Bastiat is key, because he sums up all the self contradictions of liberalism to the point that somewhere in the middle there has to be a truth – something that is workable. I hope.
That is as much as I can say with my limited faculties. I need to study him more – like I have with Carl Schmitt.
I am unfamilira with him….
Thanks
The fantastical accounting tricks that magic this “wealth” into being are a massive issue, I agree.
Those with assets then borrow against the value of those assets. As these are loans, they are not considered taxable income. As they have so much money, way in excess of what they need to meet their everyday expenses (even at extravagant billionaire levels), they use this to buy more assets. The cycle repeats and wealth continues to be funnelled upwards.
What if we just made it illegal to use shares as collateral in this way? Not sure it’s easy, but a way needs to be worked out to stop this type of abuse.
The comedian Trevor Noah nailed it here https://youtube.com/shorts/lgYoYEZPSIU?si=_Kr_X5Zd_Rtfl5gp
As you say, cash wealth inequality, (beyond absolute poverty), is relatively unimportant and sometimes merely an accountancy artefact.
It is social power that is important and that is changing from monolithic states with unchallengeable political philosophies (e.g. Soviet Marxism-Leninism) to a kaleidoscope of views communicated via the web. We might not like the views expressed but state enforced orthodoxy wasn’t great either. The internet is allowing views that have been held by tens of millions of people for decades to emerge from state suppression. People like Musk and Farage are not creating those views, they were already there.
After the EU referendum a comedian said the vote wasn’t the point when the UK decided to leave the EU, it was the morning that the elite finally had to acknowledge that the UK had never joined. I suspect there will be many more outpourings of suppressed beliefs as centralised orthodoxy is superseded in a networked society.
[…] By Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Funding the Future […]