What is the Ethical Limit to Personal Wealth?

It is unjust for 99% of all wealth to go to one person.
A limit to inequality implies a limit to wealth.

Assuming the above, how should society determine the limit to personal wealth?

 

ask yourself first, 'how wealth is created?'

 

It is unjust for wealth to go to someone who didn't create it.

 

I think we were very close to that situation back in the day, maybe Rockefeller (or Morgan?) where one man was worth as much as the entire US govt. The govt had to treat him (them) as equals.

I currently think the goals to determine the limits of wealth are set via the tax code. Tax policy as motivation to spur on govt policies/initiatives.

Is it unjust for 90% or 85% of the wealth in the hands of a few people? I suppose what they own or how it is used that is currently the problem. How's the news media these days?

Gates and Buffett are attempting to make changes that the govt and its wealth has squandered.

 

Wealth is created by productivity. Capitalism exploits means of production (labor, resources) to create wealth. Is it ethical for capitalists to control means of production?

Gates and Buffett are giving away most of their wealth to society. They would seem to agree with my thesis that there is a limit to personal wealth.

 

" They would seem to agree with my thesis that there is a limit to personal wealth."

If there is a tax incentive for them to do so, then the answer would be no. I would agree individuals have limits but they vary and are not dollar denominated. From money to power. When their perceived level of power outweighs their benefit from obtaining more money then they have reached their limit.

 

In each case it's a limit chosen by the (excessively) wealthy individual. Such a limit is a pseudo-limit since it's optional and may change with the individual's mood. Literally, however, a flexible or optional limit is still a limit of a sort.

I thought you were looking for some sort of rational way of putting a ceiling on wealth (Impossible, of course, but a noble idea).

 

Yes, it's unjust. It would probably be disastrous for humanity.

Determining a limit would be tricky but doable. Who, for instance, needs a billion dollars?

 

Morally irrelevant if 99% is going to one individual.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

Did the wealth go to someone who stole it?

Did a little bit of some billionaire's wealth go to a starving single mom?