I am really not sure how to make that distinction. It seems to me that to prevent "wealth turning into power" we would need essentially complete transparency on spending of the wealthy.
Also, I would probably much rather nail some risk (by limiting personal wealth to some reasonable amount) than risk "a leak" between wealth and power. Most founders, it seems to me, don't start overly wealthy; they would probably still risk starting their own business even if the "supergains" had zero probability (as opposed to really small probability).
Coupled with a good social and liability system (that will allow you reasonable life in case of business failure), financed from taxing of too much wealth, this can even increase the risk people are willing to take.
The problem is, how do you define them? What prevents the wealthy to produce a parallel structure which has the real power?
I think this goes back to what other people said about the wealth and power, that it's really hard to separate. I think it's possible, but at the cost of strong suspension of personal freedom (of what to do with money).
Still, even if we had what P.G. is proposing, it would be a step forward.
Also in a world with less wealth inequality, the wealth on the 'fail' side of risk taking would be less disparate. Risks would be less dangerous as there would be more to fall back on.
Also, I would probably much rather nail some risk (by limiting personal wealth to some reasonable amount) than risk "a leak" between wealth and power. Most founders, it seems to me, don't start overly wealthy; they would probably still risk starting their own business even if the "supergains" had zero probability (as opposed to really small probability).
Coupled with a good social and liability system (that will allow you reasonable life in case of business failure), financed from taxing of too much wealth, this can even increase the risk people are willing to take.