I'm open to discussion, just not "this is stupid because people would hire tax lawyers which would ruin it". I know that, but it's a fanciful idea. Anyways, a

I'm open to discussion, just not "this is stupid because people would hire tax lawyers which would ruin it". I know that, but it's a fanciful idea. Anyways, a limit on personal wealth would need to be accompanied by a limit on corporate wealth (or corporate size, or some other lever). Really, the thing that it all would require to make work would be the ability to make things illegal on the basis of intent (e.g. intent to circumvent), which gets sufficiently close to thought-crime that makes me uncomfortable (and realistically makes the idea nothing but a pipe-dream). However, without some mechanism for preemptively dealing with rule-lawyering and such, I can't see any way to actively improve society with such a measure. It'd be nice if there was a sort of duck-typing for laws. If it quacks like a tax haven, and walks like a tax haven, the technical definition of it is irrelevant, and it should be treated as a tax haven/whatever mechanism for tax avoidance. Unfortunately, that sort of rule-of-law requires a significant value-judgement by the judiciary that is untenable given the current legal structure, at least in the US.