I agree. That's completely not what I said.
Money is how we keep track of what fraction of the future output of others (of our civilization really) someone or some organization is entited to command (consume or destroy for their needs or schemes) in the future.
> US federal government spends in a single year more than the largest companies in this world would cost to buy flat out.
I'm still not convinced. You can spend a lot when you are incredibly deep in debt. Spending doesn't make you rich.
> This is why I struggle to find a consistent value system that claims we are solving problems by taking money from big earners and giving it to entities that already control many orders of magnitude more money.
The point is not giving money, it's taking the money away. Because there's a limit of how much control over others any single person deserves regardless of what they did.
>> Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success.
> What problem does this solve?
No global problem. But professional sport takes a huge toll on the body and pretty much excludes those people from any useful form of activity for entire span of their career and possibly later only for our grotesque entertainment. I don't agitate for limits in sport but that's just an example that reasonable limits may benefit people in many areas.