[strken]

The problem with this is that wealth often means ownership of capital, capital often means ownership of a private company, and so you have a peculiar situation where the government takes gradual ownership of your business once it starts to do well.

There's probably a way to work around this by making it non-voting stock or something, but it's still an inherent dampener on growth, because there's no incentive to grow, and on RnD, because there's no concentration of capital. A silicon fab is worth billions; does your system imply that the only way to build one is to either arrange a consortium of 10,000 people or government funding? HN exists because of PayPal; should the PayPal money have been spent entirely on free services? How are you going to stop the black market[0]? What are the alternate routes to power in your society, and are they better than acquiring money?

You can envisage worlds where this does function, but there's a lot of work to put in regarding the specifics, and doing the work makes you realise their might be a lot of downsides.

[0] Around 80% of North Koreans' income was once acquired through the black market: https://web.archive.org/web/20110924095232/http://www.atimes...

[rjmunro]

> A silicon fab is worth billions; the only way to build one is to either arrange a consortium of 10,000 people or government funding

That's how most large stuff gets built now. "a consortium of 10,000 people" is a corporation. There are lots of them on the NYSE etc.. Government funding also happens a lot.

Federal Tax rates in the USA when Intel was founded were 70%.

[missedthecue]

the consortiums on the NYSE are investing to be richer in the future. If you've already hit the $10M cap, what's the point? If your semi fab investment does well, you have to sell something else to stay within the law.

[strken]

You don't just have to sell your assets, you have to spend the money from the sale too. If you still want to improve your future, that means you spend it on things that don't show up as wealth. Some of those are going to be great (education, prestige from endowments, charitable donations), but others are less so (bribery, lobbying, attaining political power, money laundering, self-interested "charities" like building a park next to your own house).

[xtiansimon]

“…peculiar situation where the government takes gradual ownership of your business once it starts to do well.”

I get the gist od the argument, but to call it ownership is perverse. It’s like insurance companies and their ~$300 salvage fee they charge if you have an accident and the repair cost is greater than the ‘value’ of the vehicle. They argue if they pay you for the full value of your vehicle, they are in effect buying the vehicle from you. If you decide to keep the vehicle, they will attempt to claw ‘salvage value’ or the amount they get from a junk yard. So far I’m 1 for 1, arguing the vehicle has to be for sale for ownership to pass to another.

Another thing I find perverse is the expectation of continual year to year growth—-to infinity.