[isabelc]

Some of the tools we use everyday were created by people after they made their first billion dollars. iPhone and Microsoft Office, for example.

People will always create things, but if you have more money than you know what to do with, and your mind is not worried about working to put a roof over your head, then your mind is free to imagine and build the next world-changing thing.

Capping the income would then also put a cap on innovation. This is not necessarily bad; many people think we could have enjoyed a few more decades before the creation of the smartphone.

[senjindarashiva]

Putting a cap high enough to allow people to reach financial independence would be something totally different, and I do agree that such measures would probably stem "innovation" or at least focus it on only solving immediate issues.

However putting the cap at a billion would probably have limited effect in this sense, it would probably stop quite a lot of billionaire vanity projects though.

[Bodhisattya]

I wonder whether the innovation will really be capped in a real sense. Lets say if Apple does not introduce the iPhone, would some one not eventually still come up with a similar product? I (personally) consider that opportunity is a rarer commodity than innovativeness, and that most innovations will come about, albeit a little later.

[isabelc]

>I (personally) consider that opportunity is a rarer commodity than innovativeness

I agree. I think to create world-changing things, 3 things are needed:

1. Innovativeness or creativity.

2. Lack of neccessity to work to put a roof over your head, which frees the imagination.

3. Enough money to make it actually happen. This is the opportunity.

Many of us have #1, some also have #2. But 1 or 2 are not enough. You need all 3. Billionaires can have all 3.