If a person is unhappy with $20m they are unlikely to be happy with any amount of money, surely?

Not sure if they’ll be unhappy with their measly $20mm as much as they’ll be unhappy with not being allowed to continue playing the game. Imagine that any successful entrepreneur would be forced to sit on the sidelines after hitting $20mm of net worth.

Guess they'll have to start taking lessons from professional athletes who've had to figure out how to deal with not being able to "continue playing the game" and still be happy.

Speaking of which, why not sideline athletes which are exceedingly successful and leave some room for others? Nobody needs their 6th NBA championship or 10th Grand Slam title or 7th Formula 1 championship while their competitors, similarly talented and hard working, can spend entire careers not winning anything. Heck, it might even be better for the fans!

You need more than $20 million to be happy? Only having $20 million per person means you need to live in an "old flat?" Such weird logic: I need billions when others have no food.

You need more than $20million to build a reusable rocket company, a cold fusion reactor, or any number of other deep tech startups that require enormous investments which will likely never come from risk-averse governments.

Nuclear explosions and energy were initially developed because of military purposes. Rockets were developed for military purposes. I dont think the history of those things indicate we need rich individuals to make them.

NASA has developed into a bureaucratic machine with risk averse incentives.

The power of the state when it throws its weight behind something is awe-inspiring but the power of decentralized innovation leads to tinkering and unexpected breakthroughs that a government run project wouldn’t permit (due to the number of unnecessary bureaucracy and box checking)

> NASA has developed into a bureaucratic machine with risk averse incentives.

Consider that once companies got involved in space they had incentive to lobby congress to make NASA less competitive.

This is exactly the kind of misunderstanding—willful or not—that has been used to prevent progress on these types of issues for decades.

Even if we did what david927 suggests, and imposed a $20 million/person wealth cap globally, no one would be meaningfully "leveled down." The differences between the lifestyle of someone with $20 million and someone with $200 billion aren't that different: what's different is the level of power the latter has over people and governments. Power that has no checks and balances, no strings, no way of ensuring it's not massively abused. And given the kind of person you need to be to amass a fortune in the billions in the first place, it's nearly guaranteed that it will be abused.

The amount of money people are actually talking about taking from the billionaires will not affect their lifestyle. Period. They will still be vastly, unimaginably rich. They will go on accumulating more money, probably faster than any wealth tax will be able to appropriate it, without doing *anything*.

No one deserves to be paid more in a year for simply existing than an average human needs to spend in their entire lives on food, clothing, and shelter.

So you need a $20 million house to feel like you live in a "nice house"? Can you explain to me why your logic is less "weird" than the one you are replying to?

The point is not the exact dollar figure that makes one happy. The problem is the "crabs in the bucket" mentality.

Nice! Didn't know the name of it. I appreciate you sharing it. Learnt something cool.

> Such weird logic

Sadly becoming more and more popular.