As long as population stays manageable, which sounds feasible in developed economies, and the owners of capital accept being taxed to fund that, or go the Bill Gates way.
> the owners of capital accept being taxed to fund that
Given that the alternative seems to be riots and potentially a revolution, I think they will see that it is in their benefit to keep the population living reasonably well.
Investment in riot control gear and militarization of police in first world countries doesn't suggest that this realization is going to come any time soon.
The incentives are wrong. Each taxpayer would like to reduce his own burden specifically, but everyone shares the cost of riots and revolution (which is mostly harder on the poor, anyway). Not having riots and revolution is a common good.
But the richest have the most to loose. If you're starving and freezing most nights (the poor), you don't really loose a lot by revolting (i.e. destroying the wealth of the rich).
