Since we’re playing this game, prove to me there exists a default framework. Further, prove to me that said default framework is one that includes billionaires, the concept having been utterly alien throughout the vast majority of human history.
Any system that allows more wealth than is necessary to accumulate into one pair of hands while another pair hasn’t enough food is inherently immoral.
Also you’ve never, not once, been operating within a free economy… the only people I’ve met in life who have witnessed such an economy have gone to extreme lengths to escape it. Or they’ve died.
The default framework is the existing legal system. There is one, therefore one exists. In that framework, there is no legal limit on how much you can earn.
That framework is the default for the legal understanding of what is right and wrong. If you want us to change it, the burden of proof is on you. Bare assertions of "that's immoral" aren't going to be enough. You need to make a much more robust case than that, one that's not just soundbites. (At least here. Most people here can think at deeper level than soundbites.)
Ahh, so you’re conflating what’s legal — which at times has included chattel slavery, genocide that suited the state, actual torture, and, for the moment at least, unlimited betting by members of the executive branch on the outcomes of military actions that are facially illegal under international law — with what’s moral.
Yes, under what you’ve accepted as the default it’s legally acceptable to accumulate all the money and avoid any taxation while doing so. Thank you for summarizing and explaining to yourself and others precisely the perverse systemic bug I described earlier.