If you are turning the floor to quicksand for everyone else while trying to reach the ceiling, the ceiling should not be high for you.
have you thought through how you would even operationalize a ceiling on the amount of wealth that someone might control or have?
even a rough heuristic from you would be interesting to consider.
There are only two operational challenges, but if the political will is there, they really aren't rocket science. One is having enough auditors to enforce the tax. The second is liquidity, which can be solved by allowing the tax to be paid in kind, i.e. by allowing it to be paid by transferring ownership to a social wealth fund instead of cash.
So you would take that wealth away from productive application?
Building high speed rail, hospitals and schools. Paying teachers more, universal healthcare, better roads and airports and less free pipes.
Those are all fantastic things that benefit everyone while also creating jobs and spreading the wealth around.
Even Bill Gates has said his taxes should be higher [1]
https://www.investopedia.com/news/bill-gates-says-he-should-...
If you have above a certain amount of wealth, it is usually tied up in investments, sometimes money you have lent to the government (bonds, treasuries) and other times equity. Those are productive applications.
More generally, I'd say the burden is on you to demonstrate the exact mechanism by which productivity would be affected.
Closing up loopholes on realizing wealth like by taking loans continuously using your unsold stocks as collateral.
We don't even have to immediately jump to more extreme ideas like a straight wealth tax. We could try doing _anything_ instead of just shrugging our shoulders as we watch people like Musk and other oligarchs take us down the path Russia went in the 90s.
Technically, thanks to thermodynamics, the pie is constantly shrinking. We haven’t dug up or exploited all the useful stuff yet, so from our limited perspective there is still room to grow the pie. But we’re probably getting close to the limit, as the rate of consuming useful stuff is beginning to exceed the rate of digging it up or otherwise capturing it.
Yes, there's been a fixed amount of money since the beginning of time!
You’ve then got efficiencies. If you have 5 slaves like the new feudal lords (and wannabe sycophants) want and the them to dig a ditch, if you provide a jcb you will get more ditches done more quickly. Work done per person you control increases which is good for you as you own the output.
what do you mean?
So the idea that the wealth is going to workers (and using Mark Zuckerberg as an example) is extremely contrary to the facts on the ground and the cited reality.
Unlike central bank printing or even loan creation, this method of wealth creation is not zero-sum and not inflationary.