[LocalH]

I feel like we need a society where the amount of capital you get to keep is inversely proportional to how much you give back to society, on a percentage level. Have $100 billion dollars? Great. The more you give back in charity and community, the more you get to keep. Care more about "number go brrr" and less about your fellow man? We tax all kinds of personally harmful behavior like drinking and smoking. We should also tax anti-social behavior similarly. Someone like Musk with multiple hundreds of billions of dollars in capital should lose 75% of it unless you give back at least 25 or 30% of it, minimum. I'm not qualified to decide the exact percentage points. But we have to do something to keep the rich from vacuuming up almost every penny that exists.

Relevant for perception, possibly the greatest such illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUWDrLazCg

Daily reminder that to this day, John Rockefeller is considered one of the wealthiest humans in history, despite the fact that today's billionaires dwarf his raw numbers.

[smackeyacky]

Giving back to society means a very different thing to billionaires than it does to ordinary folk. They’d rather spend it on politicians to tear down the society they think is wrong rather than shore up the parts that are failing. I have always blamed the idea that seems to stem from liberal economics (not liberal in the American sense) that equates money with virtue, something that conservatives have taken on as a mantra.

So be careful what you wish for. Ordinary morality or virtue loses all meaning when the world becomes abstract due to your wealth.

[LocalH]

Under my idea, spending on lobbying would affect the equation zero. Contribute to charity (which is still a wide range, Dolly Parton has done so much good through her works through self-initiated foundation that I would suggest she is the gold standard).

Give to existing charity. Create your own foundation (although our government should be watching like a hawk in such a scenario to make sure you're not just funneling money back to yourself).

There might be use in considering corporations "people". But that analogy only holds so far before it becomes worse than the disease it's trying to contain.