I’d go with an even stronger measure as the only rational way to deal with wealth. (The only real wealth, after all, is physically and psychologically healthy people in a thriving biosphere.) We don’t produce wealth alone, only as part of a tribe, so all wealth does and must belong to the tribe. One person one vote also has to mean mean one person one share; we need one universal income for one person one vote to work.
IOW, Political democracy can't work without economic democracy; as long as some people have many times more money to spend on influencing politics, economics and the world, there is no democracy. Democracies make much better decisions than oligarchies or autocracies because in those systems the decision-makers use their wealth and power to insulate themselves from the unwanted consequences of their decisions. Because they can make others pay the price of their actions, they can't judge properly what's real or how the world responds to actions, how to live in the world and what's important.
People who won't feel fear, rage, grief, sadness, uncertainty, and the entire world of other emotions because they don't like them and can evade them by insulating themselves from emotional as well as other feedback make terrible decisions, too. Emotions are the body's and mind's feedback; people who are isolated from them don't know what's real, either.
When peaceful protest, direct action and other polite forms of feedback are kept out, the feedback tends to becomes stronger and stronger until it finds its way through, one way or another. The same is true of emotional feedback; isolation from it just causes people to keep committing the same maladaptive acts until the feedback gets strong enough to break through whatever defenses have been constructed.
The primitive defense mechanism of projection has corollaries in other realms; it manifests as externalizing in the economic realm, scapegoating, redlining and gerrymandering in politics. Pollution is one form of externalizing that's been growing stronger and stronger as feedback, and has now reached its strongest form yet—climate catastrophe. The right wing continues to try to block it out, afraid of it, the emotions it triggers, and the responses it demands. With it they've been blocking out the messages the feedback brings—that pollution is no more benign than other forms of projection and that we're all connected in the eco-psychological system in which projection operates.
So it's about damn time we got into a more realistic discussion of the effects of climate catastrophe and other projections; we can't operate as a society without accurate feedback getting through on both fronts. Those who have stopped the feedback for decades still have too much power; one of the main ways to take it from them is to show how horrifically dishonest and stupid they've been to try to ignore reality. We need to tell the truth. How anyone can have a problem with that is beyond me; it's decades past due. The nitpicking engaged in even by scientists who should know better has been a projective (or projectile) way they've tried to deal with their fear of fear; it and the much more dangerous unfelt fears of denying delayalists should be dealt with in more appropriate places and in ways more in keeping and more in touch with the real.