That's serious sophistry. Someone with $100,000,000 is substantially closer in wealth to a homeless person than a billionaire if you view wealth as a crass matter of net worth, but the fact of the matter is that someone that rich is functionally closer to the low-end billionaires in that they generally own their own means of production and have a great deal of security if they choose to fold and fuck off. There are lots of millionaires who have like 1 - 2 million and are, like, recent retirees or thereabout who do have more in common with you and I, but let's not use them to smuggle in fuckers who own entire towns.

Somebody who has scraped together a net worth of 1 million on a dual income household over the course of their life is upper middle class. You don't get to $10 million or more without being a capitalist. The line is somewhere in there.

Then $50 million is obscene wealth already despite being "only" 5% of a Billion.

I can believe somebody worked hard enough or did something brilliant enough to warrant control over $1,000,000 of stuff. I can believe a handful of people create $10,000,000 of awesomeness for the world - at which point they get some sort of seat at the table to tell us what's good. I have a hard time believing that any work on Earth is deserving of more than that.

I'm not too keen on investing as a means of accumulation for a society worth living in. I think worker's counsels more readily manifest democracy than firms and investors because investors concentrate wealth and influence while a counsel always needs to be listening to what consumers and workers desire. A wealthy investor can shut off private access to public spaces so people use private spaces and give them more money, but a worker's counsel is going to call that bullshit. But in terms of somebody taking public research, turning it into something dank, and getting rewarded with a life of luxury to the tune of $10MM, people's attention, and influence; that's a pretty fucking good deal.