Does a cap on enrichment make sense?

[Ian]

It is difficult to know what to do about inequality. I think that everyone has the right to health treatment and education and if you have to tax to do that, then tax. I also think there should be a minimum wage because it is ridiculous that a person goes to work and can't afford basics. But the idea that everyone should get the same is ridiculous. There has to be reward for effort, and for being sensible.

[Nik]

Lizzie wrote: ".....Nik, my impression is that you are against money being hoarded to the point it is of no use to individuals or the economy as it is sitting in a bank account offshore or buried in the basement...."

Yes, pretty much, although a cap could be high, of say, a billion dollar or 10 billion, which would effectively enable the lucky dude to enjoy every possible personal treat as well as any new business endeavor.
Looks like billionaire dudes adhering to a "Giving Pledge" at least declare thinking along the same lines.
Maybe similar to corporations when they reach a monopolistic standing, theoretically antitrust should take care of their fragmentation (rarely happens), we as a society are interested in those extra funds, stashed away, being circulated to where they are needed.
Plus, new generations coming to a moneymaking game, which runs for centuries, late, should have a reasonable vista.
A periodic partial reshuffle makes a lot of sense to me.