In late Could, Neil Rimer stated one thing throughout a sit-down I had with him in Athens that I haven’t been capable of shake. At a vibrant new tech festival within the metropolis, speaking concerning the wealth piling up round AI, he stated he has “a powerful sense that there will probably be some type of a redistribution.” He continued on. “It’ll both be voluntary or it’ll be involuntary, however it’ll occur, and I hope it’s voluntary,” he advised me, including that he thinks tech leaders “can play a number one function in seeing that by means of.”
Coming from most individuals, that may sound like standard-issue populism. Coming from Rimer, a co-founder of Index Ventures, probably the most profitable enterprise companies of the final three many years, it appeared a putting 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 nice knitwear that mark so a lot of his friends. But Index’s returns in recent times have been distinctive: the agency has raised roughly $15 billion from outdoors 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 present 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 Instances report in March that underscored how out-of-fashion philanthropy has develop into amongst among the richest folks in tech. (Famous that piece: “Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest particular person, has stated that his companies ‘are philanthropy.’”)
The sample seems to carry past the Pledge. Complete American charitable giving hit a file $592.5 billion in 2024, however the variety of Individuals really giving has fallen for five straight years, down 4.5% in 2024 alone, in line with the Stanford Social Innovation Evaluate. 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% last year.
The sample reveals up in Index’s personal portfolio, too, which includes Anthropic. Enterprise Insider not too long ago requested a monetary planner, Alex Caswell, whether or not his newly rich purchasers, a lot of them Anthropic staff tied to efficient altruism, have been pledging to present 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 advised BI, however most weren’t constructing philanthropy into their plans in any respect; they have been targeted on angel investing or beginning their very own corporations. “That’s what I’m seeing greater than the will to develop into philanthropic,” he told the outlet.
Unsurprisingly, the absence of voluntary giving is now working up in opposition to 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 major residences to South Florida to be on the protected facet.
OpenAI is reportedly contemplating going public in 2027, and cynically, one motive among others could also be that the tax, if handed, will calculate web price primarily based on a person’s worldwide belongings as of the top of this calendar yr.
As unsurprisingly, there may be loads of opposition to any form 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 comparable 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% equity 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 essentially the most harmful phrases on the earth are: ‘I’m from the federal government, and I’m right here to assist.’”
It’s price pondering by means of how a lot wealth sits outdoors these mechanisms. Musk is price simply over $1 trillion, after SpaceX’s IPO final month made him the primary particular person to achieve that mark. Forbes counted 45 new AI billionaires in its 2026 rankings alone, price 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 staff, BI notes that when Anthropic and OpenAI full their IPOs, their mixed staff will maintain sufficient wealth to purchase practically a 3rd of all properties 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 information in 1989, and roughly equal to what the opposite 90% of households outdoors 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 prime, and the image flips. Famend economist Gabriel Zucman calculates that on the top of the Gilded Age, round 1910, America’s 4 largest fortunes have been price a mixed 4% of U.S. GDP. At present, that very same sliver of the inhabitants — now 19 households as a substitute of 4 — is price 14%.
Rimer’s two paths, voluntary or pressured, have precedent from the final time American wealth focus reached this stage. 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,” turned the founding doc of recent philanthropy and the mental ancestor of the Giving Pledge.
It didn’t maintain off the opposite path for lengthy, although. By the mid-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. Frightened about shedding working-class help to Lengthy, Franklin Roosevelt pushed by means of 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, however it stays the clearest instance in American historical past of politically pressured redistribution arriving as soon as voluntary giving didn’t adequately tackle 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 heart of tech corporations,” a fascination he traced to being a Stanford undergrad in 1984, when Apple discounted the primary Macintosh for college kids and Steve Jobs and Apple’s different founders have been, in his phrases, “heroes” for constructing one thing he felt was genuinely good for the world.
What troubles him now, he stated, is listening to his personal youngsters speak about sure tech corporations the best way an earlier technology talked about protection contractors or cigarette makers.
Critics might observe that Rimer — as an investor in Anthropic and different tech corporations — is a direct beneficiary of the windfall he says will ultimately have to be shared. However he’d fairly see his fellow beneficiaries select to present among the a reimbursement than have it taken from them. There’s a straightforward method to do that and a tough method, and Rimer is betting on folks choosing the straightforward one earlier than historical past picks it for them.
Once you buy by means of hyperlinks in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t have an effect on our editorial independence.