Instead, I'm going to simply make the argument that wealth over $200 million is meaningless to a single person. The problem with this argument is that in hin

Instead, I'm going to simply make the argument that wealth over $200 million is meaningless to a single person. The problem with this argument is that in hinges on your view of what constitutes 'meaninglessness'. Although the money is legally his, the single person may feel the money is not 'his', but belongs to him, his family, his friends and all their offspring. To all those people combined, a share of the $200 million is not meaningless and a cap at $200 million would be a disincentive.