Not everyone on this planet is poor. I don't need that money. But maybe roughly 2 billion people do. And "not even a thousand dollars" is two years' salary. In this case we're talking about a quarter of the world's population, so you "not even a thousand dollars" becomes "not even four thousand dollars".

And that means: "Not even the salary for 8 years. Possibly only 5 years!"

I mean, the money is enough to completely eradicate poverty from this planet. That's all that really matters.

This strikes me as similar to the ideas of Lizzy Magie, arguably one of the most absurdly exploited individuals with noble goals that history has to offer. She invented Monopoly to illustrate the absurdity of land ownership—today, Monopoly is the game that teaches children cutthroat capitalism.

Magie received a ridiculous low sum for her Monopoly patent, while others became millionaires off her idea (the Parker brothers, whose empire still exists today, benefited the most).

Edit: Please don't get me wrong—I completely agree with you. I just don't think it's effective to focus solely on the one area where the world's wealthy accumulate their wealth. This is simply a realistic view, since no billion-dollar company operates in just one sector (for example, Alphabet, Google's parent company, is involved in real estate deals worth billions, even though it is, at its core, a tech company). So what I’m trying to say is: Regulations targeting only the real estate market cannot possibly solve the problem.