If they are inherently nefarious (which I did NOT say) to the point where the only way they'll behave socially is if they're bribed to do so, then they ARE an i

If they are inherently nefarious (which I did NOT say) to the point where the only way they'll behave socially is if they're bribed to do so, then they ARE an increased liability. I don't think that's proven. It may well be that the rich are no different from anybody else (in this case, wealth tax seems the moral choice as the people are no better or worse and you're just taxing the money pile, which is not deserved through increased merit IF the rich are no different) It may be (theoretically) that the rich are inherently better, smarter, wiser and more moral people than everybody else. This seems testable. Assuming it without evidence seems not a good idea. If they ain't better, they absolutely are an increased liability. This would imply that people can in some way gain from bad behavior, or otherwise increase their wealth through antisocial means. I think the possibility of that being true is already proven. We just don't know if it's true for every single rich person.