You don't say that he 'should' do anything. But you're providing a purely hypothetical example of what someone might do with their money if they were allowed to

You don't say that he 'should' do anything. But you're providing a purely hypothetical example of what someone might do with their money if they were allowed to continue making money beyond the amount of money that they would need to buy a nice house and feed themselves well. You're providing a justification for why someone would need more money. Why would you do that, if you don't believe that they should be able to do that? This is such an obnoxious level of not sticking to a reasonable interpretation of what you said. I know you didn't say the word 'should', but if you don't see that you providing a defense (in the form of a case for why they should need more money than what the original commenter stated) of billionaires reads as you cosigning why they should be allowed to make billions, then maybe, legitimately, you should take an English literature class? Like, this reads as pretty Gas-Lighting behavior to me. I'm not responding to things you didn't write.