>"My argument is that not that the state needs to be 'fixing' things." But that's exactly what you're advocating. According to this entire discussion, the stat

>"My argument is that not that the state needs to be 'fixing' things." But that's exactly what you're advocating. According to this entire discussion, the state itself is broken in this case, and you want to use the state to cap/prevent the ultra-rich as a remedy to it being broken. How does that not count as "fixing things"? >"We don't need billionaires." Whether we need them or not is irrelevant, they simply exist. Or is their existence something you want to "fix"? >"With the number of people worth more than $250,000,000 that we have now is just a massive disaster that ended with $15,000,000,000,000 debt on the backs of everybody." No, sorry, you have no one but your politicians and political system to blame for that. If you know you have a fallible/corruptible system, and don't change it, then the fault is on you. By you I mean you and the general population. Consequently, if your political system means it is slow to change, and is susceptible to the whims of the public that is easily swayed by the media, then you have to rethink democracy.