You are being downvoted not only because a large portion of HN believes that adding huge amounts of value to society should pay off handsomely, but also because a lot of your points are easily falsified.

Changing the example from Apple to Microsoft does not make my point any less true. In any market, the most efficient player, if he chooses to cut prices drastically, will make it tougher for other players, even if he's not actually that efficient. Through competition, this process weeds out the less efficient companies and ends up lowering prices. Microsoft was one of the only producers of a decent operating system. You can argue that Microsoft was a bloated bureaucracy, but they were surely the most efficient player of their time. They would have dearly hurt competition if they lowered prices.

In fact, many today argue that students who pirated Microsoft software cemented Microsoft's monopoly. Generations of youngsters too poor to afford Windows somehow got their hands on it and trained themselves so that when they got old, they were already equipped to use Word, Excel, etc.

If the observation "Microsoft makes too much money" led to the policy "make them cut their prices" I would bet that the exact opposite of what you intended would occur. They would have cut their prices by half for about a year, driven out their competition, gotten every cat, dog, and donkey on their OS, and cemented their monopoly status.

This phenomenon is not rocket science or new... it's called predatory pricing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing.

As for distribution of wealth... I was able to think a little bit more about it, and I have been able to pinpoint some cons with your idea. Basically, your idea is closer to communism than capitalism, so my rebuttal is basically a rebuttal against communism. I do not attach any a priori negativity against communism. I like to argue ideas on their merits, so hear me out.

As I mentioned before, you might think a cap of 1 million per year per person is reasonable, but someone else might think the cap should be 100,000. "There's too many starving kids in the world", he might say. In fact, if members of the government aren't so well paid, they will probably take an existing precedent of 1 million and abuse it to grab more and more cuts from successful businesses. "If you give an inch, they'll take a mile." But let's say your government is corruption-free for the sake of argument. Is it still a good idea?

Allow me to tell a story. WIDCO is a company that makes widgets. These widgets are very complicated and so require manual labor. Meet employees Bob and Jake. They're both exceptional widget makers, but Jake is above and beyond the better one. He might possibly be the best in the world. A normal employee averages 50 widgets a day; Bob averages 100; Jake averages 300. It's clear that Jake is providing quite a lot more value to WIDCO than any other employee. But because of regulation, WIDCO can pay at most $100,000 to Jake. Jake understands. He is a humble man and understands that $100,000 is enough for him and his family. But day after day, he gets demoralized because he realizes that his hard work and skill is being used to subsidize the pensions of employees who just can't do the work as well. Eventually, Jake realizes that he'd rather leave early to his family than work his ass off for no additional benefit. He figures that making about 150 widgets or so a day is enough to keep his salary constant. So he works just 4 hours a day and goes home soon after. Bob never feels this as he's getting paid $85,000, which he can still increase by getting better at producing widgets. He still believes in hard work and produces more and more. Until he reaches the cap, of course.

You might think, oh well Jake goes home! Better welfare! But whereas today, Jake actually has a choice between working more + get paid more vs. stop working + go home, in this world the government's basically removing that choice. Now, if that choice is absent in today's world, yes that is a problem that points to human rights abuses like I mentioned in my first post.

Do you want to discourage employees like Jake? You can imagine employees like Jake in the real world, who really aren't greedy, but who also aren't gonna just work for free when they have alternatives like going home.

You can see that the artificial salary cap has DECREASED the production rate of WIDCO.

Above all, I think you have a deep-seated belief that consumers need protection from themselves. It's not a black-and-white issue, of course, but you're strongly putting words in their mouths by claiming that they're being "ripped off". When millions of people can't wait long enough to hand money to Apple, are they really being ripped off? On what basis do you get to decide how they should spend their money? What if they're actually getting a DISCOUNT for the happiness they derive from the IPad? Before, they had to spend a weekend in Tahoe to get X units of happiness. Now, they just need to spend $600 on an IPad for the same X. In that case, they're not being ripped off at all right?

My advice to your future theorycrafting: think through the consequences of policies, not just the immediate and close ones, but also the long term and global ones.