[markus_zhang]

I'd say universal basic income and a high cap (e.g. 100 Million) for personal wealth. If you are richer than that you have to put it into a fund which publicly shows what it does, or just gets taxed away.

In Capitalism $$ is power. You want to restraint power? You limit $$ a single person/entity can hold and then make their activities transparent.

I firmly believe that "limiting $$" will reduce innovation is completely BS. It's the reverse.

[galdosdi]

Whoa. That's a really cool idea. Have as much wealth as you want, but past $100mil or something we recognize it's not really just yours and it has so much gravity it affects society around it and thus, we still let you fully control it, but you must be fully transparent about it.

I can think of a lot of shady investments people wouldn't dare make if total transparency was required.

Or maybe you should be allowed to benefit from but not really control it. So above $100mil you have to put it in a blind trust or something.

[s1gsegv]

This is a really cool idea! Apart from illegal acts though, I wonder if it actually solves the societal gravity problem. I can imagine someone going “yeah I paid $$$ for this thing that’s a societal bad, what are you going to do about it?”

Maybe it still strikes the right balance while being more palatable to implement than a real wealth cap.