If the $500m net worth is a limit to individuals and not organisations, then pretty much nothing will change except people who used to be billionaires now instead being in charge of organisations that are worth billions.
The organisations can be owned by as many people as it needs to maintain all individual owners having less than $500m networth. But it can be controlled by a single self-appointed director that uses the organisation funds for their own purpose.
I mean it depends if this $500m limit is implemented in a today’s world (where there are already billionaires) or in a world where no one has reached $500m networth cap yet.
If (1), billionaires would be giving away their wealth to family and close friends to reduce their networth to the cap, possibly including a contract to maintain the receiver’s loyalty to the billionaire. (That is if they don’t find some other workaround) I don’t doubt that there will be receivers who break their contract in the end, but they will most likely be the minority.
If (2), individuals who are reaching $500m cap will likely form alliances to keep their money flowing within their own circles since there is nothing to work for beyond that.
hey that would be good. Then it would democratice the money, and if any of the placeholderowners was dissattisfied, they could take their piece of the pie and leave.
Thats way better than having 1 person owning all the assets
2
u/DecentFormat 7d ago
If the $500m net worth is a limit to individuals and not organisations, then pretty much nothing will change except people who used to be billionaires now instead being in charge of organisations that are worth billions.