Moving from Charitable Giving to Spending Down to Genuine Redistribution..
At Guerrilla, we talk a lot about redistribution—but what does it actually mean? Our mission centers on ensuring that wealthy individuals part with their wealth in ways that dismantle, rather than reinforce, harmful power structures. But when can someone who was once considered wealthy truly earn the title of “redistributor“?
The Psychology of Wealth and the Illusion of “Not Being Rich Enough”
Wealth is hierarchical, and people tend to look upward rather than downward. Studies show that even those in the top 10% of income or wealth distribution often misperceive their position, comparing themselves to the ultra-wealthy rather than the global majority (Norton & Ariely, 2011; Chambers et al., 2019). The upper-middle class—frequently unaware of their privilege—supports conservative tax policies, hoping they might one day benefit (Reeves, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2020). High-net-worth individuals point to ultra-high-net-worth individuals as the ones who should be taxed first, perpetuating a cycle of deferred responsibility (Piketty, 2014).
This cycle continues until someone draws a line, declaring that excessive wealth accumulation is unsustainable. The global majority already knows: wealth inequality grows faster than poverty declines (Oxfam, 2023). Trickle-down economics is a myth (Stiglitz, 2015). While we push for systemic tax justice, we must also advocate for direct redistribution.
What Do We Mean by Redistribution?
In an ideal world, dynastic wealth hoarding wouldn’t exist, and redistribution wouldn’t be necessary because resources would be justly distributed from the start (Rawls, 1971). But we’re far from that reality. Until then, we must fight for wealth and power redistribution wherever possible – and that includes shifting narratives.
Wealth isn’t created in a vacuum; it’s extracted – socially, environmentally, and often dynastically (Hickel, 2017). Redistribution must therefore be a democratic mandate, not a voluntary act of charity. Traditional philanthropy is flawed: giving is optional, amounts are trivial compared to accumulated wealth (Giridharadas, 2018), and funding sources are tied to harm being done elsewhere (McGoey, 2015).
But we can’t wait for governments to enforce redistribution through taxation or expropriation. Wealthy individuals must act now—and how they do so matters. Not all philanthropy is good; who decides and what gets funded are crucial (Eikenberry & Mirabella, 2018).
From Trickle-Down Giving to Real Redistribution
Philanthropy often operates on a trickle-down model: a tiny fraction of wealth is donated while the rest remains tied to extractive industries (Giridharadas, 2018). Corporate foundations (e.g., BMW, IKEA) exemplify this contradiction; funding social causes while their core businesses perpetuate harm (Barkan, 2013).
We need a shift toward:
- Spending Down: Actively releasing hoarded wealth into the world, guided by bottom-up practices (Kania et al., 2021).
- Sunsetting: Ensuring foundations close within a lifetime, avoiding perpetual dynastic control (Bernholz et al., 2020).
- Justice-Informed Redistribution: Moving accumulated, inherited, or created wealth with intentionality (Dorling, 2014).
Defining “Real” Redistribution
How much wealth must be moved for redistribution to be meaningful? Research suggests that even modest wealth taxes (e.g., 2–5% on fortunes above $50M) could fund transformative social programs (Saez & Zucman, 2019). We need:
- Minimum thresholds for redistribution (Collins & Hoxie, 2020).
- Transparent, collective accountability in setting targets (Ostrom, 2010).
- A recognition that access to wealth isn’t just financial—co-ownership of illiquid assets (e.g., family holdings) still confers power and must be addressed (Haney-López, 2014).
You are not redistributing meaningfully, unless you are effectively reducing your wealth. As long as you still get richer while also donating, that’s what it remains: donating. Redistribution starts when what you give exceeds what you collect, and ideally, all your means of collection are mission aligned. If your average wealth growth is 7%/year, unless you give more than that, you are effectively not redistributing but shopping.
Who Qualifies as a “Redistributor”?
This definition is inherently political. At the Guerrilla Foundation we are fortunate to have a real reason for trying to find a definition that works for us. Marlene, one of our Funders Circle members redistributed most of her wealth in 2024 (see here) and we found ourselves wondering whether she deserved a whole new category on our website and what others would need to do to join her in this elite club of the Redistributors.We propose that a redistributor is someone who:
- Has spent down to the point where they can no longer be part of our Funders Circle (min. contribution of €50,000/year).
- Has moved below the top 10% wealth threshold (e.g., €250,000 in Germany; varies by country but relates to cashflow not other assets) (Credit Suisse, 2022).
- Has relinquished decision-making power alongside financial wealth (Young et al., 2021).
But complexities remain:
- What about future inheritances? Should temporary redistributors lose their status if they receive a new “dynastic download”? (Piketty, 2014).
- How do we ensure transparency? Should former funders share their stories, metrics, or remaining wealth (Reich, 2018)?
- It is helpful to account for different kinds of wealth. This is a common argument against redistribution but it simply invites complexity-navigation:
- In the case of cash inheritance, it is easily redistributed. The point of no return is reached when this cash effectively falls below the mentioned thresholds.
- Company wealth is more “bound”, but it’s like a knitting style for yarn. You can tie your yarn into the knots of an “ltd” but you can also knit a “coop” or whatever other legal structure makes sense and releases wealth from your ownership and control. Sometimes the pre-existing contracts bind owners and reduce their power to let go in order to protect a system of shareholders (very typical scenario in family businesses where the key point is that the wealth remains in dynastic control, i.e. the family holds it and you can only sell within the family but this also means you forfeit your position to change the business from within although that tends to not work unless you have allies to begin with).
- Owning houses/buildings/infrastructure > how to put it in the hands of the users?
- In general, ownership as a legal category that blends into personal identity is also important to consider. Most redistributing/donating is more like shopping for a good conscience. you spend some, not too much, all “within reason” of what you can AND want to afford, you compare causes like items and check their value for money. That’s full control. Redistribution that takes control from the owner because it redefines ownership as more complex but, it does the topic more justice.
Why This Category Matters
We must redefine philanthropy. True radicalism means expecting funders to redistribute themselves out of the top wealth class entirely (Schervish, 2005). This is the path to philanthro-abolitionism and if we are to compost philanthropy into something new, decentralised, egalitarian, fuelling the grassroots, then we need some clarity on our mutually, accountable goals & definitions around real, contextually-relative redistribution level.
Conclusion
Real redistribution isn’t charity—it’s justice. It demands systemic change, personal accountability, and a rejection of hoarding. The question isn’t just how much to give, but how to dismantle the structures that made extreme wealth possible in the first place (Milanovic, 2016). It’s an iterative journey that is collectively understood and held, but one that is absolutely necessary if we are to call this work radical, both in terms of root-cause orientation and how politically far-reaching it is in practice.
With key contributions from Romy, Marlene & Thomas <3
References
Bernholz, L., et al. (2020). Philanthropy in Democratic Societies. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Chambers, J. R., et al. (2019). “Misperceptions About Income Distributions.” Psychological Science.
Collins, C., & Hoxie, J. (2020). Billionaire Bonanza. Institute for Policy Studies.
Credit Suisse (2022). Global Wealth Report.
Dorling, D. (2014). Inequality and the 1%. Verso.
Eikenberry, A., & Mirabella, R. (2018). “The Politics of Philanthropy.” Nonprofit Policy Forum.
Giridharadas, A. (2018). Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Knopf.
Haney-López, I. (2014). Dog Whistle Politics. Oxford Univ. Press.
Hickel, J. (2017). The Divide: Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets. Norton.
Kania, J., et al. (2021). “Decolonizing Wealth.” Stanford Social Innovation Review.
McGoey, L. (2015). No Such Thing as a Free Gift. Verso.
Milanovic, B. (2016). Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization. Harvard Univ. Press.
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). “Building a Better America.” Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Oxfam (2023). Survival of the Richest.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard Univ. Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard Univ. Press.
Reeves, R. (2018). Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust. Brookings.
Reich, R. (2018). Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy. Princeton Univ. Press.
Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2019). The Triumph of Injustice. Norton.
Schervish, P. (2005). “Major Donors, Major Motives.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
Stiglitz, J. (2015). The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them. Norton.
