One word in, and already the same inverted burden of proof problem as the comment I replied to.
> people to become billionaires is a hideously inefficient way to solve hard problems
It's a good thing that's not the reason, nor is any reason required, and that's not your choice to make. And, also critically important: it's a great way to solve specific hard problems that aren't the ones most people are focused on.
Over the course of my lifetime, I expect to donate 99+% of my lifetime earnings towards specific charitable causes that are not something that the vast majority of people care about, though I believe they should.
> If even a fraction of that money funded university research departments, say, we'd get far more problems solved.
University research departments are a passable way to solve some problems, motivated by the ability to attract grant money and publish papers. Many problems are far more efficiently and quickly solved when motivated directly by producing a product or service people will pay for.
Again, the problem is not that we have millionaires and billionaires. The problem is that we have people with nothing. Let's fix that.
Good on you.
No, you'd get more grantsmanship. It's an indicator of how hideously inefficient and misguided our university research programmes are that the word even exists.
Allowing people to become billionaires is a hideously inefficient way to solve hard problems. Most billionaires hoard their wealth, or spend it on the hard problem of ostentatious display of wealth. Billionaires who solve hard problems: Bill Gates and Elon Musk. The rest of that wealth goes on things like solid gold soap dishes for superyachts - my neighbour worked at a shipyard, and a customer had them rip out merely gold-plated soap dishes in all the showers.
If even a fraction of that money funded university research departments, say, we'd get far more problems solved.