This already exists.
It's called taxes, death, and children. Billionaires only have a single lifetime to spend their wealth, taxed at pretty high rates when they actually liquidate their assets, and it eventually evaporates over a few generations.
There's ~3k billionaires and they're powerful enough that they'll be able to avoid those caps through loopholes, like through shell companies. There's no real practical way to prevent someone from accumulating wealth if they wanted to continue to do so.
That quote about no more billionaires is from someone that cares more about making a point than actual policy.
Re:A Company of One
by nameequalsmain on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @02:32AM
(#37388544)
> There's no real practical way to prevent someone from accumulating wealth if they wanted to continue to do so.
Not within a capitalist system, no. There are other systems though.
Re:A Company of One
by gadflyinyoureye on Tuesday September 05, 2023 @08:04AM
(#37390570)
This worked surprisingly well in the communist countries. Look at China and Russia. There has never been a black market where distributors go rich. Never once.
There’s a quote[1] which makes the rounds occasionally and I think sums up the sentiment pretty well:
> Ok how about this:
> No more billionaires. None.
> After you reach $999 million, every red cent goes to schools and health care.
> You get a trophy that says, “I won capitalism” and we name a dog park after you.
---
> Most billionaires net worth is highly centralised in the stock of the companies they founded[...] unless we are talking asset seizure I am not quite sure how you would do away with [billionaires]
Marginal asset tax rate of 100%? (Really, the main difference between that and the inheritance tax you favor is the timing.) The Wikipedia article[2] has a bunch of arguments for why that might be a bad idea, but it’s reasonably straightforward in principle.
[1] https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/1241843944238923777
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax