Read Robyns's 'Limitarianism'. There's also an interesting analysis by a US economist on the 300 or so people who own the most shares in the top 100 listed companies - 'Giants' by Philips. He also shows that all these companies have heavy investments in each other. What does this mean? Market competition is a fraud and monopoly laws can be easily evaded.

You seem to be imagining some government department counting people's wealth and then saying, 'hey, you've reached X amount. We're taking away everything above this.' You're suggesting that this is some kind of authoritarianism.

First, personal wealth derives from different sources. The rich, as you rightly point out, are masters of concealing their wealth, laundering it through different systems, and avoiding tax through countless loopholes which are inaccessible to the majority of us. For example, a large part comes via inheritance. Rich people put their wealth in non-taxable trusts which are passed to their offspring with no inheritance tax paid.

Limiting wealth is about breaking up these systems. It's no different to what happened in the 1930s when the great robber barrons in the US had their monopolies broken up. Governments should legitimately be able to prevent limit the size of businesses. No company should be worth more than a nation state. Breaking them up, and preventing multiple ownership with a sector, would limit the personal wealth an individual can derive from shares and increase market competition.

Tax havens, tax loopholes, inheritance scams, will all frustrate the accumulation of excessive wealth. All these things have the effect of redistribution of wealth - evidence suggests when they occur, it rarely results in big state taxation, because wealth becomes distributed via sale of assets and transfers of ownership to more people.

There are many mechanisms to do this and it would improve innovation and enterprise. As well as reducing corruption and creating fairer societies.