I don't see why it makes no sense. In a market system, to some extent, for everything one individual accrues, others have given. The intention is that this exchange is for value, however, at some point, it might have less to do with value, and more to do with the nature of the system itself. If you consider that at a point concentration of capital can become harmful (not only for society, but for maintaining a healthy market), then upper limits might make some sense. But must it be always be more money? If you are earning $500M per year, maybe more money isn't the healthiest motivator. These rewards do have a cost that society bears, I think one of the biggest costs is the loss of political power.but there should always be a reward for increased gains.