Well, there should be some objective parameters to determine such things.
We can't vote/sex/drink/gamble because it is assumed that young people sucks. Maybe looking at the statistics government decided 18 years is good? I think if 12 year old can pass driving test then they should be allowed to drive. If 30 years can't pass, they must not be allowed to drive.
So, how about we find objective paramters to determine what should be the best border to determine the elites? May be it is 100x minimum_salary? There are plenty of option I guess.
You know it's this kind of stuff that actually makes the tax code so complicated, but because you insist:
An amount of wealth that would provide you a top %0.1 lifestyle if you were to retire today based on a standard 60/40 portfolio (to be adjusted every N years to reflect new data) and actuary tables.
It doesn't have to be this exact policy, but this isn't hard to think something like this up.
A) inflation b) try to buy a house for 1M in a hcol place. Why would you set the max wealth less than that of a house, something that most humans have been able to own for most of human history, now out of reach for a generation.
You need to realize that absolute numbers are meaningless, they are all relative to costs and inflation. Trying to lock down fiat absolutes is a moving target.
What is a realistic wealth limit for BTC, out of 21M?
Should nobody own more than 1/21Mth the Bitcoin? Less? More?
"Probably" seems the key word here. Many people have a slight preference for a policy with wide ranging ramifications. It's better to be unconvicted on matters that are inconsequential, like whether tea or coffee is the superior beverage.
