Ask HN: What would happen if we prevented the creation of billionaires?

I think it is more fair to equalize power and avoid people being capable of manipulate too much of the society with their money. If the tax is progressive at some point you will have a hard cap of 100% tax.

Empirical evidence: They would denounce citizenship and move to other countries. This happened in France with a wealth tax, which caused high net worth individuals to move to other countries (like Gérard Depardieu). You can see the same thing in other places of Europe, where citizens flock into Monaco, Jersey etc. The US is no different, plenty moved to Singapore, Cambodia, Monaco, Jersey and other places. The same is true for Chinese nationals and others.

Wealth can be used to influence political power, which can be used for good or bad (In the past billionaire Pablo Escobar was overthrowing the Colombian government, funding terror group FARC etc.). So it depends on what the billionaire wants, not democratic process.

In response to your question, about exactly where to come down on billionaires, I'm not sure but there are some great points on here, and for the folks questioning why so many techies question having billionaires and lean more toward socialism, here are my views. And I’d love to hear yours, pro or against.

If you’re in the US or Europe, you live in countries that are capitalist, but that have a huge helping of socialism so that we can take care of our citizens.

At the turn of the 20th century, we had more “real” capitalism with the social safety net. The result is that J.P. Morgan literally worked his starving employees to death, which was called “morganization.” Andrew Carnegie was able to get away with having union demonstrators shot to death by the Pinkerton police, and there certainly weren’t criminal charges filed against him. Rockefeller found his oil deposits had an explosive component called gasoline, and he had no idea what to do with it; so his company’s scientists created the internal combustion engine we still drive today.

From FDR’s reforms including 'social' security to the FDIC to protect our bank deposits, we enjoy the benefits of the socialist aspect, and it is not a dirty word here.

We used to not have the socialism of free public education for our children, and the addition vastly improved society including economic mobility. Today, one doesn't have to be a land owner enjoying hand-me-down wealth to have economic opportunities. Even law had to deal with this, with the passage of negligence laws, and preventing inter-generational wealth. (See the rule against perpetutities https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_against_perpetuities, the question you're always told to skip on the Bar exam.)

Unbridled capitalism without the social component is not a place most people would want to dwell in. On the other hand, the socialist component, yang to the ying of capitalism, and I am a capitalist myself, has been an enormous feature of civil society.

In short, if you like the life that you have, and you live in the democracies, you live in and enjoy socialism as much as capitalism.

As someone older than I guess the average age of most hackers, the fact that these techy folks have these views, question whether we should even have billionaires, and 'socialism' is not a dirty word for them, makes me think makes we will have a brighter future.