Some form of capital control is necessary for taxation. Without efficient taxation all of the people you mention are going to be extra fucked.

There are capital controls and then there are capital controls - but preventing you from moving all of your money out of the country to avoid taxes is still a control on capital.

> I don't buy the theory that someone else being well off makes me badly off

You mean the theory of...mathematics? More money in one place necessarily means less money in another.

If I sell a product for 100€ but only pay my worker 20€ to make it, I'm becoming rich. If my worker wants to buy that product, it costs them 5x their salary, but only costs me 1.4x. If all my CEO friends do the same for their products, the workers are becoming poor because of us becoming rich.

Now let's stop trying to be rich. Let's lower the margins and sell the product for 40€. Now it's 2x my salary (marginally worse for me), but also only 2x my worker's salary (much better for them). Let's say all of us CEOs do that. By not being rich, we've allowed our workers to be less poor.

You assume economics is a zero sum game. Which I don't think is even remotely proven.

To not make it zero-sum, money would need to either have to be created in a transaction or somehow raise its value. The former clearly doesn't happen and is a terrible idea and the latter doesn't either and even if it did, it would affect both sides (rich an poor) equally (as a ratio, not absolute) and therefore even widen the gap in purchasing power.

Money is literally created every day. It's exceedingly easy in fact.

Yes, but because the amount in circulation goes up, the value of it goes down. And it's not like the money that is created benefits the poor - it just allows rich people to borrow more probably make even more money from their "investments".