In late Could, Neil Rimer mentioned one thing throughout a sit-down I had with him in Athens that I haven’t been in a position to shake. At a vibrant new tech competition within the metropolis, speaking in regards to the wealth piling up round AI, he mentioned he has “a powerful sense that there will probably be some form of a redistribution.” He continued on. “It’ll both be voluntary or it’ll be involuntary, nevertheless it’ll occur, and I hope it’s voluntary,” he instructed me, including that he thinks tech leaders “can play a number one position in seeing that via.”
Coming from most individuals, that might sound like standard-issue populism. Coming from Rimer, a co-founder of Index Ventures, one of the vital profitable enterprise corporations of the final three a long time, it appeared a hanging factor to say in public.
Rimer stepped again from day-to-day investing in 2021, and as of late spends a lot of his time in Athens, the place his spouse is from and the place his youngsters treasure their Greek passports. He turned as much as our interview in a rumpled button-down and denims, not the quarter-zips and advantageous knitwear that mark so lots of his friends. But Index’s returns in recent times have been distinctive: the agency has raised roughly $15 billion from exterior traders since its founding, and final yr’s exits together with Figma’s IPO and Google’s buy of the cybersecurity agency Wiz reportedly netted Index roughly $9 billion.
Rimer has discovered methods to provide again. He sits on the board of Endeavor Greece, which mentors entrepreneurs in rising markets, and chaired the board of Human Rights Watch from 2019 to 2025. In late 2021, he and his father and two brothers gave $13 million to McGill College to renovate a campus constructing, now the Rimer Constructing, and located a brand new Institute for Indigenous Analysis and Knowledges.
Within the meantime, his remark about redistribution comes at an odd second, to be charitable, for giving. The Giving Pledge, the promise Warren Buffett and Invoice Gates launched in 2010 to get billionaires to commit half their fortunes to charity, is turning into more and more irrelevant. 100 and 13 households signed in its first 5 years, then 72, then 43, then simply 4 in all of 2024, per a New York Occasions report in March that underscored how out-of-fashion philanthropy has turn into amongst a few of the richest individuals in tech. (Famous that piece: “Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual, has mentioned that his companies ‘are philanthropy.’”)
The sample seems to carry past the Pledge. Whole American charitable giving hit a file $592.5 billion in 2024, however the variety of Individuals really giving has fallen for 5 straight years, down 4.5% in 2024 alone, in keeping with the Stanford Social Innovation Overview. Two-thirds of households donated in 2000; roughly half do now, and Financial institution of America and Lilly Household Faculty knowledge reveals even affluent-household giving has slipped, from 90% in 2017 to 81% final yr.
The sample reveals up in Index’s personal portfolio, too, which consists of Anthropic. Enterprise Insider not too long ago requested a monetary planner, Alex Caswell, whether or not his newly rich purchasers, lots of them Anthropic workers tied to efficient altruism, had been pledging to provide away the majority of their fortunes. Anthropic matches worker donations of as much as 25% of their fairness to charity, and a few of Caswell’s purchasers have used it, he instructed BI, however most weren’t constructing philanthropy into their plans in any respect; they had been targeted on angel investing or beginning their very own corporations. “That’s what I’m seeing greater than the will to turn into philanthropic,” he instructed the outlet.
Unsurprisingly, the absence of voluntary giving is now working up towards makes an attempt to legislate the end result as a substitute. California voters will determine this yr on a 5% one-time wealth tax that targets the state’s billionaires. Some, together with Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Web page, have already moved their main residences to South Florida to be on the secure facet.
OpenAI is reportedly contemplating going public in 2027, and cynically, one purpose amongst others could also be that the tax, if handed, will calculate internet value primarily based on a person’s worldwide belongings as of the tip of this calendar yr.
As unsurprisingly, there may be loads of opposition to any sort of wealth-redistribution measure of this scale, together with by Governor Gavin Newsom, and together with by economists who level out that many industrialized nations have repealed related wealth taxes since 1990 after watching their rich residents skedaddle.
Different choices on the desk are as controversial. OpenAI has reportedly mentioned handing the federal authorities a 5% fairness stake, an thought CEO Sam Altman has framed as sharing AI’s upside with the general public, however critics see it as a substitute as a method to purchase political cowl in Washington. In both case, Silicon Valley has by no means been keen to place Uncle Sam on the cap desk. Joked veteran investor Roelof Botha throughout a separate sit-down with this editor final yr: “[Some] of probably the most harmful phrases on the planet are: ‘I’m from the federal government, and I’m right here to assist.’”
It’s value pondering via how a lot wealth sits exterior these mechanisms. Musk is value simply over $1 trillion, after SpaceX’s IPO final month made him the primary individual to achieve that mark. Forbes counted 45 new AI billionaires in its 2026 rankings alone, value a mixed $2.9 trillion, and that’s earlier than both Anthropic or OpenAI has gone public. In that very same BI story about Anthropic workers, BI notes that when Anthropic and OpenAI full their IPOs, their mixed workers will maintain sufficient wealth to purchase practically a 3rd of all houses within the San Francisco metro space.
It feels unprecedented, however whether or not it represents an historic excessive is a matter of some debate. The share of wealth held by the highest 1% of U.S. households hit 31.7% within the third quarter of final yr, a file because the Federal Reserve started monitoring the info in 1989, and roughly equal to what the opposite 90% of households exterior the highest decile held mixed.
That’s nonetheless under the 45% the highest 1% commanded on the Gilded Age peak in 1916. However slim the lens to the tippy high, and the image flips. Famend economist Gabriel Zucman calculates that on the top of the Gilded Age, round 1910, America’s 4 largest fortunes had been value a mixed 4% of U.S. GDP. Immediately, that very same sliver of the inhabitants — now 19 households as a substitute of 4 — is value 14%.
Rimer’s two paths, voluntary or compelled, have precedent from the final time American wealth focus reached this degree. In 1889, on the peak of the primary Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie printed an essay arguing {that a} wealthy man ought to deal with his fortune as a belief to be distributed for the general public good inside his personal lifetime, calling it a shame to die rich. That essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” grew to become the founding doc of contemporary philanthropy and the mental ancestor of the Giving Pledge.
It didn’t maintain off the opposite path for lengthy, although. By the mid-Nineteen Thirties, Louisiana Senator Huey Lengthy had constructed a nationwide following behind a program referred to as Share Our Wealth, demanding steep taxes on the wealthy to fund a assured earnings for each American. Fearful about dropping working-class help to Lengthy, Franklin Roosevelt pushed via what the press referred to as the “soak-the-rich tax,” elevating the highest marginal earnings tax fee as excessive as 79%. It redistributed lower than Lengthy wished, nevertheless it stays the clearest instance in American historical past of politically compelled redistribution arriving as soon as voluntary giving did not adequately handle the strain constructing beneath it.
None of that is information to Rimer, who has spent his profession in tech. What’s extra curious to him is “the ethical middle of tech corporations,” a fascination he traced to being a Stanford undergrad in 1984, when Apple discounted the primary Macintosh for college students and Steve Jobs and Apple’s different founders had been, in his phrases, “heroes” for constructing one thing he felt was genuinely good for the world.
What troubles him now, he mentioned, is listening to his personal youngsters discuss sure tech corporations the best way an earlier technology talked about protection contractors or cigarette makers.
Critics could be aware that Rimer — as an investor in Anthropic and different tech corporations — is a direct beneficiary of the windfall he says will ultimately must be shared. However he’d somewhat see his fellow beneficiaries select to provide a few of the a reimbursement than have it taken from them. There’s a simple method to do that and a tough method, and Rimer is betting on individuals selecting the simple one earlier than historical past picks it for them.
While you buy via hyperlinks in our articles, we could earn a small fee. This doesn’t have an effect on our editorial independence.
