Seriously, even if wealth were capped such that you could only attain a multiple of the median income or some other bench mark it would only serve as a straight jacket for productivity. Distributing those gains back to society directly would only serve inflation as the relative cost of goods and services would seek equilibrium with demand and the existing money supply. The only thing I can imagine is having excess productivity siphoned off via a tax or general fund that reinvests back into society...which is the goal of philanthropic efforts. Instead of giving their children the trust fund, it becomes a resource for society to focus on the things the free market neglects.
You are missing a great and fundamental point. You see Bill Gates was one guy. Clever perhaps, very clever maybe indeed, lucky also let us say for the sake of the argument. But he is only one guy!
He has the wealth of millions of people. How many have gone insane and started feeding pigeons like Telsa, how many have been unable to afford higher education, how many people were denied the opportunity to contribute to the world because they were not born in a middle upper class family as Gates was.
By the way, inflation would not go up, nor as you speculate will things even out and be once more as they are now but Bill be denied of his billions. The world is a zero sum game, it costs that much to produce a certain something and unless people want to make excessive profits like Mr Gates then it would costs just as much.
Maybe I am arguing against the wind, but so too maybe people have forgotten that they could have been born in any environment, that they could be right now starving for food in Africa, that they could be that loony man in the corner of the shop begging for money. We are lucky that we are not, but for how long. People accepted feudalism in the 16th century too. Without acceptance and a legitimate expectation from society that it is acceptable for someone to exploit you to death while they live in luxury feudalism would not be a fact, without the cultural acceptance that it is fine to enslave others and treat them as inferior slavery would not be a fact. What make us think that now it is different, what makes you think or anyone reading this that accumulation of such great wealth for no rational reason whatever is justifiable?
You miss the part where Bill Gates created that wealth. He didn't take wealth that other people had already. Also, Microsoft employees collectively earned many times what Bill Gates did. And Microsoft customers used the software and hardware to generate many, many times more wealth, which went to their employees and customers, etc. Each sale (well, most sales) of the software benefited both Bill Gates and the person/company buying the software. Multiply the benefit by billions of sales, and you've got billions of dollars.
how many have been unable to afford higher education, how many people were denied the opportunity to contribute to the world because they were not born in a middle upper class family as Gates was.
We decide who to lock up, so why not put a limit on how much wealth one can accumulate, say something like no more than 1000% of the average wage, all other income taxed at 100%, or 90% or 80%.
They only gain this income by exploiting the proletariat so its only fair!
Which, in practice, means: People who are thirsty enough for power to go into politics (you have to really want power to endure that kind of life), and groups with political clout (farmers, unions, big corps, rent-seekers of all kinds, etc).
Yes, that might be what it means, but in all fairness, those same people decide if you go to jail for killing someone or not. There is nothing technically to prevent the legislature from legalising murder. Or torture as effectively they did during Bush years. So if they are an evil to be endured in such very fundamental matters, why not when it comes to a very serious matter too, the exploitation of people.
These ideas are of course very unconventional, hence why they get downvoted so freely without any counter argument, but does anyone in this website thing seriously that the rich do not have such tight control over the government that they are at liberty to legitimise theft pure and simple.
If not, then does anyone in here possibly think that any person in the rich list is so marvellously superior to any of us to deserve having the wealth of an entire country?
If so, do enlighten me. I will change my opinion entirely that there is a deep flow in our society which is fundamentally unfair and affords much cruelty to many.
Because I thought that of all places, a site dedicated to entrepreneurship would attract people who understand that it isn't true that the only way to make money is to "exploit the proletariat", but rather that the proletariat would be a lot worse off without successful entrepreneurs.
Well, if Mr Gates charges me 500 rather than 400 then well his gain is my loss. So too if he pays me 11k rather than 12k, keeping that extra k as profit for himself, his gain is my loss.
