It’s a real question. If it’s not worldwide you haven’t eliminated the ultra-wealthy, you have just relocated them. Their wealth is still tied up and unavailable for the redistribution the original premise hopes to achieve.

In those local places where you have made the ultra wealthy illegal, you have also discouraged them to invest in your locality. In other words, you shot yourself in the foot.

I am glad we got to your real answer. Which appears to be "we can't do that, we need the ultra-wealthy to spend money on us." One of the lessons of the pandemic is your economy is actually better serviced by many people spending money than by 1 person hoarding it.

You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap.

But the effect of this is actually that we would realize we don't need the ultra-wealthy. We would likely do better because it would be a significant downward pressure on inequality in the countries that enforced it, and more people would have opportunities to make it big.

> I am glad we got to your real answer. Which appears to be "we can't do that, we need the ultra-wealthy to spend money on us."

If there are going to be ultra wealthy, then yes, locales benefit where they invest.

> You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap.

Correct, so they just don’t do business in your country and do business with the countries elsewhere that are happy to accept their investment.

At least the relocated ultra-wealthy will not be able to influence your politics directly.

“Directly”

Yes, this is far from perfect. At the same time, it's much better than doing nothing.