I voted "NO", but I don't agree with the "they are both too wealthy". "Too" wealthy will always be subjective. But with money comes the power to create more money. That strange equation needs a balance - my preference is a perfectly progressive tax that does not discriminate based on some magical line that needs to be crossed. There's no need to differentiate between the guy that makes 10k, 1M, or 1B - a progressive tax would regulate their ability to extract wealth without prejudice.
I can see where it would be bad for business and the economy if people were limited to a certain income. Bank executives could work for say, six months, shut down the bank, then open it again at the beginning of the next tax season.
Do you really think anyone would work for free to keep the ship afloat?
others see the ability to create as many pies as we want, therefore everyone has the opportunity to earn as big a slice of the pie as they dream.
Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
"Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice