By capping incomes/ownership to 500,000 wealth somethings, you discourage the creation of productivity required to supply the extra 1000 wealth somethings to ev

By capping incomes/ownership to 500,000 wealth somethings, you discourage the creation of productivity required to supply the extra 1000 wealth somethings to everyone, as required to transition from scenario A to C. By penalizing anyone making/having more than that cap, nobody has incentive to create another 500,000 (or even just 1) more wealth somethings which would, at some point, would be transferred to others anyway. In practice, such capping tends to turn scenario A into B because not only is anyone discouraged from producing more than a certain amount of value, what manifestations of wealth which exist decay and are eventually destroyed without sufficient resupply for the whole society; as wealth is consumed/decayed/destroyed, and productivity is effectively punished, the majority increasingly vote for forced redistribution of what remains, leading to stabilizing at 50 per person. Wealth somethings don't just grow on trees, ya know. They don't last indefinitely either, much less increase commensurate with population growth & needs despite lack of sufficient incentive to create them.