Sure, but only capitalism concentrates so much wealth in such few hands An alternative would be that company like Microsoft couldn't gain so much wealth, simpl

Sure, but only capitalism concentrates so much wealth in such few hands An alternative would be that company like Microsoft couldn't gain so much wealth, simply because their revenue would be capped / taxed high enough that the extra money they make goes back directly to people and governments In this case, *everyone* gets to vote and choose for what philanthropies the amount gets used, rather than having just "one guy" deciding for himself how to spend all this money, which is prone to errors