This methodology is a joke. A key finding they've highlighted is: "One-third of millionaires set [the level of too much money] at $10m". Surely like 85-95% of millionaires have less than $10m, and it's easy to imagine someone with 10x your money having too much money.

Who are their surveyed millionaires? A random 15 people they found from "Brazil, France, Italy, South Africa, the UK, and the USA".

The general idea of a harmful amount of wealth is interesting, this report doesn't feel very serious.

> In a period defined by rapidly growing wealth inequities, there is increasing discussion about whether we should also be asking how much is too much.

One. One person who goes around arrogantly proclaiming how much money they think other people should be allowed to have is too much. Unfortunately we have millions.

I'm all for it. It's clear that inequality warps socioeconomic structures and incentives, from interpersonal relations to the functioning of a democracy. The pushback will be massive, but the work and research that gets us to a given number will be invaluable in understanding the state of the world as we move towards developments that could drive the gulf between the haves and have-nots to astronomical levels (AI and commercial space development).

Rather than a monetary amount why not a multiple. For example disincentivise having over 100x the average.

Extreme wealth is immoral. It's very strange that isn't self evident, even to a lot of direct victims of it. Such concentration of resources, beyond the capacity of any individual to manage productively, or even effectively, is impossible to justify. An economic policy that allows it is destined to fail, as such accumulation of wealth cannot be sustained, especially when so much of it ceases productive circulation as a result. Even at small percentages, the effects are cumulative and start stacking up quickly--an acceleration that is easy to see in the graphs tracking wealth distribution over the last few hundred years.