That's impossible because that amount of money is not to buy material things but influence. It's a circular problem with no solution.

Throwing them down a well would solve it, no?

If throwing them down a well would solve it, then can you think of a less extreme solution, like for example, sitting them down to let them know that they have to give up their political power?

No, we need to fix the mechanisms that have allowed so much wealth to accrued by individuals.

Companies need to be taxed correctly. They need to give back to the societies that built the social structures that allowed them to be created and thrive.

I would somehow tax inactive capital. Capital that is not directly invested in a company or pays for employees. Everything laying around or on the stock market should be heavily taxed.

That doesn't change the ownership problem. This solution could still allow for a a handful of people to own everything because they would be invested in, and therefore have ownership of, all of the companies.

The stock market is for directly investing in companies...

Islam bans stock markets and interest (though not all current so-called muslim countries) and every person who is rich (who have more than 87 grams of gold worth of things) is obliged to donate %2.5 of their total wealth to the poor every year. In Muslim countries, the state collects and distributes this, so it's effectively a tax. Necessities of life (shelter etc.) are excluded from total value calculation. Muslim countries traditionally took away land of people who didn't utilize it for 3 consecutive years, though idk whether this is rooted in the religion itself.

That's probably state land and regular people are not allowed to own land. If they don't work it, it gets transferred to someone else.

Yeah, right iirc.

It's also better for society, because it incentivizes people who produce more than average to keep producing. There's an optimum somewhere.

i guess the ammount of contribution to scociety by ppl that got access to fuck you money is vastly overstated due to market economics

Why do half a billion?

Let's make it $500,000. Nobody needs more than that.

Right? I'm being serious. You can live a luxurious life on $500,000 per year.

Oh wait, well compensated tech people make more than that, so let's pick a higher number!

"A rich person is someone who makes more than me"

But they were talking about total wealth amassed, net worth, while you say “per year” as in income. Completely different metrics.

Ok, then make the maximum wealth you can accrue $3M. You can live a very nice life on that.

That barely gets you into a normal house in the bay area.

Just like nobody needs more than $5M, nobody needs to live in the Bay Area.

I think $100000 wealth is fair. Most of people in the world doesn’t have that amount. Why to go upper?