That's not how corporate ownership works. It's not about the ROI, it's about ownership in the company you founded / are running.
If your goal is just ROI, then you will willingly divest from your own company, at which point your wealth is taxed as a capital gain.
When we are talking mutli billionaires like Bezos who may be driven by more grandiose incentives like amassing power, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to effectively remove some of their control.
In reality, there are loads of people in between: founders of medium size businesses.
The wealth tax is imposed on everyone in this spectrum. The capital gains tax is only imposed on those that amass the most amount of power.
So I'm perfectly OK saying you can't single-handedly control a business larger than $100 million without paying the rest of society extra compensation for maintaining that kind of power.
Seems perfectly fair to me. Power is finite in the same way land is. If controlling a company is valuable to you in some other way other than just amassing power, say you are really behind the mission of going to space, you can reorganize into a non profit.
>In contrast, if you were to take an individual worth $10 billion, whose entire net worth is derived from the ownership of their stock, and were to tax them 2% of their wealth annually, they would have to somehow come up with $200 million every year to pay the tax
If your $10 billion dollar asset isn't returning you much more than 2% per year, it has a terrible ROI, and you need to divest.
>corporate wealth is NOT zero-sum, it's created.
Not absolutely, but the power represented by the percentage of the world's wealth one controls is finite. At the limit if I own 99% of a countries current wealth, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the rest of the citizens of that country to decide that I have amassed too much power and to rectify that by taxation and redistribution.