Yes, your Bereans are unequivocally for Billionaires! And Millionaires! and thousanders (?), or whatever income/wealth class label you want to apply. We’re even for the concept of Trillionaires and Zillionaires. We don’t doubt that having too much money can be a problem, as the Biblical proverb warns us:

Proverbs 30:7-9 
⁷ Two things I ask of you;
    deny them not to me before I die:
⁸ Remove far from me falsehood and lying;
    give me neither poverty nor riches;
    feed me with the food that is needful for me,
⁹ lest I be full and deny you
    and say, “Who is the Lord?”
or lest I be poor and steal
    and profane the name of my God.

Yet when we hear the Democrat candidates piling on top of themselves to pontificate that billionaires conceptually shouldn’t exist, we wonder which is worse: Billionaires with too much money to spend, or progressives that think they have the right to adjudicate how much wealth an individual is allowed to hold? That would use the power of the state to take from people they think make “too much.” How they decide what is too much and what is just right, i.e., how they would draw the line, and what moral basis other than their own outrage justifies this approach, they never say. Mr. Sanders argued during the debate last week in Ohio:

“We cannot afford a billionaire class whose greed and corruption has been at war with the working families of this country for 45 years.”

It’s a strange world that has me in agreement with Mark Zuckerberg, who responding to Bernie Sanders charge that billionaires shouldn’t exist.

“What I believe is I don’t think that in some cosmic sense that anyone deserves to have billions of dollars,” he said. “But there are a lot of people who do really good things and kind of – and help a lot of other people. And you get well compensated for that.”

Yet I think its important for us to reflect on why there are many that need to be outraged at the concept of the filthy rich. I assure you that Mr. Sanders, et al, is not concerned about the spiritual health of billionaires who might suffer the temptation that with wealth that they would “be full and deny you and say, Who is the Lord?” Rather the political world is precisely that described by Bastiat in The Law, who correctly argued:

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Deep down, progressives know that to take from some to give to others is wrong. Yet they are both deceived by poor thinking, i.e., that some being rich means that others must be poor (fallacy of zero sum thinking) and by their own desires to have something for nothing. In the latter case, they are after legalized plunder. But to salve their guilty consciences, they must convince themselves that their greed is not the problem, rather it is the greed of the billionaires! They seemingly never stop to think about how the billionaires got their wealth, i.e., they produced something consumers greatly value. Or if they do, they arrogate the right for themselves to have the wisdom to know how much is “too much” compensation for that production. They never have concern about what the results of their policies might be until, like Mr. Zuckerberg, they are in the crosshairs. And even then, notice Mr. Zuckerberg has no fear of the power of the state to make such completely arbitrary declarations as to what wealth is acceptable and what is not. The same progressives that rightly understand the dangers of a Mr. Trump and the power that he holds have no concern that such power itself is a problem–only that this power must be in the hands that share our values.

Yet Bereans are suspicious of concentrated power–much more so than concentrated wealth. Concentrated power in the hands of sinful man has led to unmitigated carnage and destruction of life historically–in the hundreds of millions of people slaughtered. The fact that Mr. Zuckerberg has a fat bank account troubles us much less. Much, much less. We worry much more about what men or women that think that they are wise enough to make such decisions might do when they grip the levers of power. This Berean doesn’t want to replace the hubris of Mr. Trump with the hubris of Mr. Sanders or Ms. Warren. How ’bout no hubris?