Skip to main content

How to be rich and believe in equality

By John MacIntosh
January 22, 2014 -- Updated 1318 GMT (2118 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • John MacIntosh: Rich egalitarians are being tested as never before
  • He says those 1 percenters who oppose inequality don't share views of populists
  • MacIntosh: Poor aren't poor because the rich are rich; there are structural causes
  • He says wealthy should pay more in taxes but as part of a plan to invest in society's future

Editor's note: John MacIntosh was a partner at a leading global private equity firm, where he worked from 1994 to 2006 in New York, Tokyo and London. He now runs a nonprofit in New York.

(CNN) -- Believe it or not, there are a fair number of people in the "top 1%" who think that the existing distribution of wealth and opportunity is grotesque.

They believe that an American's place in this distribution is too dependent on irrelevant factors (race, creed, color, etc.) and relevant ones (educational attainment, intelligence); that inequality is bad not only because poverty sucks and the wealthy can do more but also because it is corrupting fairness in politics, education, health, national service and employment.

John MacIntosh
John MacIntosh

They think it degrades social relationships, weakens national solidarity and drives the United States down international league tables in important areas. And these "rich egalitarians" believe that government can and should do far more to reduce inequality and mitigate its effects.

John Sutter: The most unequal place in America

Rich egalitarians are often accused of weakness by the left for not voluntarily giving up more of their treasure, judged irrational by the right for not giving up their idealism (in the interest of self-interest), and suspected of self-righteous hypocrisy by people who doubt that they sincerely want to reduce an inequality whose fruits they seem to enjoy very much.

Despite these attacks, for the last 20 years, it's been pretty easy for rich egalitarians to live by following this simple playbook:

• In politics, vote for progressive Democrats, support progressive policies yet still sleep easy (though with some guilt) in the knowledge that even when Democrats are in power no policy truly hostile to the economic interests of the rich can pass (e.g. the Buffett Rule or some other mechanism to tax capital gains sensibly and the "carried interest" earned by investment managers); gnash teeth when the Republicans are in power; generally ignore state and local politics.

Professor: Inequality has been festering
Mega-rich to discuss inequality in Davos
New York mayor firm about taxing wealthy
Fareed Zakaria's take: Income inequality

• In philanthropy, give significant money and time to organizations working domestically with disadvantaged people or providing public goods available to everyone.

• In personal matters, eschew ostentation and the cloistered world of private planes and country clubs; live a normal upper middle-class life, in a liberal city, of parks, subways and economy-class travel (but private school for the children).

• In business, remain committed to the core public/private division of labor where private markets, technology and business provide innovation, efficiency and effectiveness while the government redistributes otherwise excessive outcomes (through taxation and income support), mitigates ill effects (through regulation) and provides "public" goods such as education, parks, public transportation and health care as well as the core functions of the "watchman" state (contract enforcement, rule of law, national security).

Opinion: Mobility, not income inequality, is the problem

But across the board, rich egalitarians are being tested.

In politics, the emergence of the populist left poses a dilemma. Although they share some common policy ground, egalitarians believe in fairness (everyone doing what they reasonably can and should) while populists believe in taking (from those fat cats). And remarkably, some populists seem to believe that we live in a neo-agrarian economy where the poor are poor because the rich are rich, whereas egalitarians see broader structural causes.

And rich egalitarians, while acknowledging that part of the policy remedy will require the rich become considerably poorer, also think it will require a long-term commitment to investments in education, health care, infrastructure and the other public goods.

CNNMoney: World's 85 richest own as much as the poorest 50%

So in New York, where rich egalitarians were originally heartened by new Mayor Bill de Blasio's early focus on inequality, they now worry, given the tone of the inauguration, that he may prove to be a populist in egalitarian clothing who asks the wealthy, rightly, to do their fair share (higher taxes to expand affordable housing and pre-K) without asking others to do the same (reforming arcane work rules and unsustainable benefits for public sector unions, etc.).

And it is easy to imagine something similar at the federal level if tax rates on the wealthy were increased without any of the structural changes -- increasing the total tax base, investing in public goods, curbing the growth in entitlements -- required to create a more egalitarian, yet fiscally sustainable, society.

Of course even rich egalitarians can't fully embrace a populist movement whose defining narrative tars the wealthy as villains, but should they nevertheless support the populists because of the short-term policy overlap, or abandon them on principle?

In philanthropy, charities clamor more than ever for support while pundits tell the wealthy to discard "band-aid charity" to focus on "solving" problems through various types of "impact" investing (where they might also make a buck). But if charity is out and problem solving is in, shouldn't "merely wealthy" egalitarians cede that terrain to Gates, Buffett and other Giving Pledge billionaires with the individual resources to make a difference?

In personal life, the "normal" option -- just fine in the past -- continues to be hollowed out to make room for an ever-expanding set of gold and platinum tiers that are becoming the norm not only in credit cards and air travel but everywhere ($315/hour Disney VIP Tours anyone?).

Worse yet, the bar rises each year with respect to what wealthy children see as "normal" given the increasingly perverse lengths to which many parents will go in the attempt to lock in high socioeconomic status by turning their children's lives into grueling, yet luxurious, 17-year, all-expenses paid, Ivy League applications. Does the commitment of rich egalitarians to a "normal" life require explicit acts of self-sacrifice and restraint on a daily basis?

And in business, the debacles of the last decade -- gun control, insider trading, the financial crisis, Blackwater, etc. -- force rich egalitarians to question whether their commitment to markets/technology/business has become anachronistic in an era where business seems incapable of self-regulation while relentlessly absorbing hitherto public goods and defeating even sensible efforts at regulation. (And in the absence of campaign finance reform, rich nonegalitarians are now free to use their de facto control of corporate assets to fight against redistribution on the personal side as well.)

But since rich egalitarians can't abandon the commitment to the market (rich egalitarians are not socialists), should they pin their hopes on nascent forms of "social enterprise" that are far from proving they can deliver the goods?

How will rich egalitarians respond to these challenges? A few will ride the tide to become self-loathing populists. Others will give up their egalitarianism and retreat to bucolic suburbs where they're less likely to have awkward run-ins with old friends or feel picked on by the mayor.

But I hope most discover that their convictions prove up to the challenge; that they'll explore new avenues of impact investing in addition to, not in lieu of, charity; that they'll continue to live in the city, ride the subway and fly coach; and that they'll engage with the populists despite their differences, showing them that the rich aren't so bad, arguing strenuously for sustainable fairness, not opportunistic taking, paying newly higher taxes without complaint and serving as a fifth column within the ranks of the wealthy to help the city and nation take at least baby steps in the direction that they've always claimed it should go.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John MacIntosh.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
September 21, 2014 -- Updated 0730 GMT (1530 HKT)
John Sutter boarded a leaky oyster boat in Connecticut with a captain who can't swim as he set off to get world leaders to act on climate change
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 2322 GMT (0722 HKT)
Is ballet dying? CNN spoke with Isabella Boylston, a principal dancer at the American Ballet Theatre, about the future of the art form.
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 2147 GMT (0547 HKT)
Sally Kohn says it's time we take climate change as seriously as we do warfare in the Middle East
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1302 GMT (2102 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah says an Oklahoma state representative's hateful remarks were rightfully condemned by religious leaders..
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1922 GMT (0322 HKT)
No matter how much planning has gone into U.S. military plans to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Arab public isn't convinced that anything will change, says Geneive Abdo
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1544 GMT (2344 HKT)
President Obama's strategy for destroying ISIS seems to depend on a volley of air strikes. That won't be enough, says Haider Mullick.
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1303 GMT (2103 HKT)
Paul Begala says Hillary Clinton has plenty of good reasons not to jump into the 2016 race now
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1501 GMT (2301 HKT)
Scotland decided to trust its 16-year-olds to vote in the biggest question in its history. Americans, in contrast, don't even trust theirs to help pick the county sheriff. Who's right?
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 0157 GMT (0957 HKT)
Ruben Navarrette says spanking is an acceptable form of disciplining a child, as long as you follow the rules.
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1547 GMT (2347 HKT)
Frida Ghitis says the foiled Australian plot shows ISIS is working diligently to taunt the U.S. and its allies.
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1958 GMT (0358 HKT)
Young U.S. voters by and large just do not see the midterm elections offering legitimate choices because, in their eyes, Congress has proven to be largely ineffectual, and worse uncaring, argues John Della Volpe
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 0158 GMT (0958 HKT)
Steven Holmes says spanking, a practice that is ingrained in our culture, accomplishes nothing positive and causes harm.
September 18, 2014 -- Updated 1831 GMT (0231 HKT)
Sally Kohn says America tried "Cowboy Adventurism" as a foreign policy strategy; it failed. So why try it again?
September 18, 2014 -- Updated 1427 GMT (2227 HKT)
Van Jones says the video of John Crawford III, who was shot by a police officer in Walmart, should be released.
September 18, 2014 -- Updated 1448 GMT (2248 HKT)
NASA will need to embrace new entrants and promote a lot more competition in future, argues Newt Gingrich.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 2315 GMT (0715 HKT)
If U.S. wants to see real change in Iraq and Syria, it will have to empower moderate forces, says Fouad Siniora.
September 18, 2014 -- Updated 0034 GMT (0834 HKT)
Mark O'Mara says there are basic rules to follow when interacting with law enforcement: respect their authority.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1305 GMT (2105 HKT)
LZ Granderson says Congress has rebuked the NFL on domestic violence issue, but why not a federal judge?
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1149 GMT (1949 HKT)
Mel Robbins says the only person you can legally hit in the United States is a child. That's wrong.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1723 GMT (0123 HKT)
Eric Liu says seeing many friends fight so hard for same-sex marriage rights made him appreciate marriage.
ADVERTISEMENT