This is something that reminds me of what one of these wealthy corporate guys said in an interview in a documentary i was watching. It's that no matter how much money you have, you can only really buy so much. You only need to many pairs of clothes, you only can go out to eat so many times or drink oh so many fine wines, you only sleep with a few pillows, on a single bed. You have a finite reach wherein your vast wealth that you continuously accumulate is actually viable to spend through and "contribute to the economy" which is why the pole shift to the myth of the almighty "job creator" was done. Because it's clear as day that once you pass a certain threshold, it's functionally impossible barring you being deliriously stupid with your money to ever lose your fortune.
Once your "money makes money" then you're in an infinite loop where the only things you can ever actually spend money on and feel adequate returns on are the absurd, lavishly hedonistic excesses of the hyper wealthy. Which don't contribute to the economy and don't actually impact the day to day lives of the common people.
Even if you diffuse the excess money from the top 1% while allowing them to retain the base wealth, I.E. once your money making passes a certain threshold where it's no longer feasible that you could be markedly damaged from losing this additional income, should be taxed or redistributed.
Wealth concentration doesn't help the economy other than making the fancy GDP number look better on paper. But there really is no reason that these hyper wealthy demagogues like the Koch brothers should be so single mindedly obsessed with the acquisition of more wealth, because they literally cannot spend all of it in their lifetimes, their childrens lifetimes, or even several generations down. There need to be hard, hard incentives against the monstrous accumulation of wealth.
