The Soviet system? Whether we like the ideas in the article or not, that's not even remotely similar to what's being discussed. We can't have discussions aroun

The Soviet system? Whether we like the ideas in the article or not, that's not even remotely similar to what's being discussed. We can't have discussions around financial topics if we do things like describe any financial policy to the left of pure lasseiz-faire as "Soviet." Robeyns proposes two upper limits on personal wealth. Most countries with a solid social safety net should bake a 10-million-euro (approximately $10.8 million) cap into their social and fiscal systems, she argues. As an ethical guide, individuals should limit themselves to 1 million (perhaps $5 million in the less secure United States, where one mistimed hospital bill could be enough to thrust a household into bankruptcy). She also notes ruefully that both proposed numbers are also less restrictive than some philosophers’ ideal: In The Laws, for instance, Plato argues that the wealthiest people shouldn’t be able to have more property than four times what people with the least have. So, to be clear, you could be quite financially comfortable. I understand perhaps, a little bit of what you seem to be grasping at. Whatever hard limits we set, people will game them. The first thing that comes to mind is that if we set a naively set a hard limit on personal wealth, people will hide their wealth in other ways. Example: perhaps I am permitted to have "only" $10 million in personal wealth. However, my $100bn company "just happens" to let me use its $100 million yacht for 200 days per year and they also provide me personal chefs and so forth. So I have the lifestyle of a billionaire, thanks to the company I own, regardless of what my bank account says. But... Soviet? Come on.