"nobody needs" is a protest that doesn't matter to anyone except people interfering in other's personal business.
What nobody needs is a stranger telling them how much money they deserve to have and blaming all the ills of world on their success. Nobody needs that except people looking for power over others who have no personal or business interest in listening to them.
At a certain point, no, it really isn't. When a single individual has enough money to influence public policy where I live, I would definitely say that's too much money. It becomes my business when someone who votes with their dollars gets more votes than I do with my actual vote.
People who have the ability to move things tend to move more things. I don’t see this as explicitly wrong, but natural. On the other hand, efforts to give masses of people disproportionate political rights have led to more murder in the last century than any in civilized record. And I would include American imperialism in that judgment.
Yes, I am absolutely against unlimited free speech to the extent that it undermines democracy. I will say it explicitly here: no single, private citizen, whether as an individual or through some corporate proxy, whether that's some PAC or Amazon.com, should be able to influence public policy to the extent that they are able to today.
As for your straw man about my judgement being superior, I did not say that. I said that voting with ones dollars should not be more powerful than voting with one's votes. I believe in 1 person = 1 vote. So, in fact, I am claiming that my view on public policy is no better than someone with millions or billions of dollars.
But, what do I know? After all, I am actually_a_dog on the internet. ;-)
And I would wager that an individual who requires transacting in foreign markets as an effect of their properties will have more information and therefore more determination than yourself, a dog who has no concept of civilized record. :P Thus I do not find it abysmal that such individuals have more representation in the determination of public policy. I in fact have stipulated that blind dogmatism of democracy is actually harmful - which the American Republic was cognizant of.
(As to the point of how such personas with the need to be political to preserve their wealth and how it effects your locality, I am an advocate of laissez-faire whereby oligarch penetration in human communities is not possible because federal legislation was never intended to regulate neighborhoods.)
But I don't think you should get a say in someone else's income just because you think they earn to much. That's none of your business.
Most good fortune in the world comes down to luck and help of literally everyone else. Not wanting to share that wealth comes down to pure greed, ego, and ignorance.
Veritasium – Is Success Luck or Hard Work? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LopI4YeC4I
And do you consider yourself lucky or unlucky in life? Your handle suggests the latter.
I can attest I do not wish to share my wealth with those who are cynics ;) does that make me a bad human? Does it make me a bad human that I choose to cultivate myself further, exacting greater human flourishing in the process? Am I lucky to do so, or am I determined to do so? And how is society not benefiting from my greater efforts at being human, which necessarily implicates more integration with my fellow race?
In this context, that's an interesting typo.
I don't know about you, but I need more than -10 million dollars.