Should there be a limit to wealth?

Let's start by considering one extreme possibility:  one person owns everything on the planet.  Let's name this person Midas.  Midas owns all homes, so each other person must pay rent to Midas.  Midas owns all the farms, so each other person must buy food for Midas.  Midas owns all buildings and businesses, so each other person must work for Midas in order to survive.

Should anyone be allowed to own everything?  This seems like a possibly horrible life for the rest of humanity.  Of course, Midas could be a generous owner and perhaps he pays people enough for them to survive fairly well.  Eventually Midas will die and then I suppose Midas will grant the world to his first-born child.

Would Midas be just as happy owning enough to satisfy his every whim?  How much money is sufficient to satisfy his every whim?   One billion dollars?   One trillion dollars?


I believe that no individual should be allowed to own the entire world and I think the vast majority of people would agree with that principle.  Yet in America today most conservatives seem to believe that a person has a right to own as much as they can.

We have a few individuals who have tens of billions of dollars who have decided that it would be best to donate a large part of their wealth to charity.  That is a laudable goal, though I consider the acquisition of such wealth to be possibly unfair.

How well can one live on one billion dollars?  Assuming a long life, that would easily allow spending ten million dollars a year, probably while continuing to amass more wealth.  Could a person live well on ten million dollars a year?  I can live pretty nicely on 1% of that amount.

When you consider the fairness of taxation, perhaps the idea of having a 90% marginal tax bracket for extremely large incomes seems unfair.  In 1963 the highest marginal tax rate was 91% which applied to incomes over $200,000 (or $400,000 for a couple filing jointly).  I am skeptical of this rate.  My suspicion is that the tax code was loaded with rules which wealthy people used to get their tax rate reduced.

But is it inherently unfair to have higher tax rates for people with higher incomes?  I would have no real concern about having a graduated tax system capping out at 90% for income over 100 million a year.  I don't think these people would be bankrupted by the income tax.  They would still live in mansions, eat fancy meals and live in luxury.  Many of them do admirable things for which they are amply rewarded.  But our society should not be designed to support extreme accumulations of wealth.  Think about it: How much better could you live off 200 millions dollars a year versus 100 million?  I can't see how it would make any difference.  How much more caviar would you eat?  I think I could eat well enough off 100 million.  How nice a home could you live in?  As long as I have air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter, I can't imagine why having a 20,000 square foot home would be any better than a 10,000 square foot home.  I can't imagine why anyone would wish to have some many homes that they can't remember how many they own.

I think desiring huge wealth is a mental problem.  Studies have been done trying to relate wealth and happiness.  I believe that up to about $70,000 a year happiness increases with income, but after that the extra money doesn't matter much at all.  Mental health and happiness are far more desirable than wealth.

So, if there are billionaires reading my essay, consider relaxing more and enjoying life.  You have no need for more money, so quit working so hard.  Take up hobbies and be happy.  You probably only live once, enjoy it!