During a late May conversation in Athens, Neil Rimer voiced an idea about AI-driven wealth that stayed with me. At a lively local tech event, he described a clear expectation that some redistribution of those gains would occur. He added that the process could unfold through choice or through outside forces, and he expressed hope that industry figures would help guide it voluntarily.

Most observers might view such remarks as routine calls for fairness. Yet from Rimer, a co-founder of Index Ventures and a longtime leader in one of the sector's top firms, the statement carried unusual weight in an open setting.

Rimer reduced his active investing role in 2021 and now divides time between Athens, his wife's hometown, and other commitments. He arrived for our discussion in a casual shirt and jeans rather than typical venture attire. Index has delivered strong results lately, raising around $15 billion overall and realizing roughly $9 billion from recent exits such as the Figma public offering and Google's acquisition of Wiz.

He continues philanthropic work through board service at Endeavor Greece and as former chair of Human Rights Watch through 2025. In 2021 he joined family members in donating $13 million to McGill University, supporting building renovations and a new institute focused on Indigenous research.

His redistribution comments arrive as large-scale giving appears less popular. The Giving Pledge, started in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, has seen fewer sign-ups in recent years, with only four new commitments recorded in 2024. Broader U.S. charitable donations reached $592.5 billion last year, yet the share of households that donate has declined steadily, falling another 4.5 percent in 2024.

Similar trends appear among Index portfolio companies such as Anthropic. Reports indicate many newly wealthy employees there are directing funds toward new ventures or angel investments rather than major philanthropic plans, despite company matching for certain donations.

With voluntary efforts slowing, policy proposals have gained attention. California voters face a ballot measure this year that would impose a one-time 5 percent wealth tax on billionaires. Some high-profile residents have already relocated to avoid potential impacts.

OpenAI is said to weigh a possible public listing in 2027, partly to address timing questions around any new tax calculations based on year-end valuations.

Resistance remains strong, including from Governor Gavin Newsom and analysts who note that many countries abandoned wealth taxes after wealthy residents departed. Other ideas, such as OpenAI considering a federal equity stake, draw criticism as attempts to secure political favor rather than genuine sharing.

Meanwhile the scale of new fortunes continues to grow. Elon Musk recently surpassed $1 trillion, while Forbes identified 45 fresh AI billionaires worth nearly $2.9 trillion combined. Once Anthropic and OpenAI complete public offerings, their staff equity could represent enough value to purchase a substantial portion of San Francisco-area housing.

Current concentration levels remain below the 1916 Gilded Age peak for the top 1 percent, yet the very largest fortunes today represent a larger share of GDP than their historic counterparts. Rimer's suggested paths echo earlier responses, from Andrew Carnegie's 1889 call for lifetime distribution of wealth to later tax increases under Franklin Roosevelt aimed at easing social tensions.

Rimer traces his interest in the ethical direction of technology firms to his Stanford years in 1984, when early Apple products and founders seemed to promise broad benefits. He now worries that younger voices view some current companies with the same skepticism once reserved for defense or tobacco industries.

Although Rimer benefits from holdings in Anthropic and similar firms, he continues to favor voluntary steps over compelled ones, hoping participants select the simpler route before external events intervene.