[QuarterReptile]

>Once a person has wealth over, say, $500 million, then there should be a 100% tax.

Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence.

>I do not understand how the U.S. government does not view these billionaires as serious ideological threats to democracy, the court system, national security, etc

Cooperation. A government that can't handle the idea of powerful citizens has all the tools it needs to make almost all those people (hard to banish all the Christian missionaries, and martyring them is the surest way to grow more) leave or fall in line, but I don't think many people look at Venezuela or North Korea as ideal places to govern in terms of democracy, the court system, national security, etc.

[bmitc]

> Your inability to conceive of a useful purpose for such a quantity of money does not justify prohibiting its existence.

What inability and where was it demonstrated? Are you referring to a useful purpose if it was taxed or a useful purpose for individuals to have such wealth? If the latter, then I propose that an individual containing such wealth is less useful than it being returned.

Those things and countries you mentioned have nothing to do with this discussion.

[towaway15463]

It’s rather ironic that a discussion of Elon Musk prompted you to make that assertion.

[QuarterReptile]

It's so many layers of delightfully nested irony. Give more money to the federal government so they give more big tax credits for Tesla purchases, but Tesla can't exist any more in this fantasy world where nothing outside of the federal government can grow beyond $500 million in scope.

[bmitc]

I clearly referred to personal wealth.

[bmitc]

What is ironic?

[towaway15463]

You could examine your comment that I replied to for clues.