This eternal question, as old as humanity, has been answered in different ways over time.
Kings, princes, lords, generals, church leaders have always been rich. And often along with them some of their ministers, senior officials and creditors, such as the farmers-general. Sometimes this included also some of their suppliers: artists, diviners, cooks, architects, gardeners. Wealth is then reflected in the purchase of land and in the construction of castles.
With the market economy, and for the most part in port cities, have emerged new wealth that came from corporations and risk taking.
In the West, it starts with Protestantism, able to identify with Jewish values, for whom the scandal is poverty, and not wealth. While for the Catholic Church it is the exact opposite. In particular, France has lost there any chance of abundance when, in 1685, King Louis XIV, to the applause of all, drove the Protestants out of the country, by revoking the Edict of Nantes signed by his predecessor Henry IV.
Very soon, the question of acceptable income gap arose: 20? 40? Or, as now, more than 500?
In France, the debate is resurfacing this summer with the discussion on higher income taxation. It is clear that, if the next budget were to take back 75% of what is earned over 1 million euros, that would mean that again it is becoming impossible to make a fortune in France. It will be a second revocation of the Edict of Nantes with the same consequences: departure of executives, artists, entrepreneurs. Ultimately, the moving of company headquarters to London and Brussels. And France would become only one of many possible subsidiaries of these companies, and jobs there would not be protected: everyone loses, as in 18th century France. One might wish it otherwise, but that is how matters stand at the moment: no one is confined in one’s borders.
If on the other hand, hopefully, the measure is based on each taxable portion and takes into account the CSG and CRDS, the State will only take 60% of what is earned over 3 million euros by a family with two children. And long-term capital gains, such as the income of artists, will not be affected.
Such a measure would be tolerable. And useful, if limited to two years. To catch up with the tremendous gifts to the richest in the previous decade.
At the same time, we should probably have to tackle the issue of how to mak an income. Why traders and soccer players are the highest paid in the world?
In companies, greater transparency, the association of shareholders and unions in setting executive compensations, will reduce the scandals, with employers increasing their salaries when they lay off or when there is a decrease of their share price on the stock market.
Beyond that, we will have to think of what it means for a society, for a company than to be unable to retain its elite, who have become crossing mercenaries.
As long as the market sets the values, its logic will prevail.