Ah yes, let's become even <i>more dependent</i> on the rich, this will fix our problems.<p>If you want to transfer their wealth, then just transfer their wealth and be done with it and declare nobody can ever be a billionaire or whatever. That's actually at least sane.<p>Otherwise this (and many like it) is a dumb plan because it will make you more dependent on them, when<p>1. it seems nobody wants them to really exist in the first place, and we want to eliminate them - see below.<p>2. If you <i>don't</i> eliminate them, you are becoming more and more dependent on a smaller and smaller group over time. Ignoring the totally obvious problems with this, it doesn't work anyway. People don't want them to have any more political or other power than anyone else, but this is totally unrealistic if the vast majority of your funding ends up depending on them. Like, good luck with that i guess?<p>It's also unreasonable anyway, the 5% partner in a 2 person small business does not get 50% of the say. It's only because of the amount of class warfare involved that anyone considers this position sane. If you don't want rich people to have power, stop depending on them. This is not different than anything else in the world (if you don't want Amazon to have power, stop depending on Amazon)<p>If you do eliminate billionaires, now your plan is basically:<p>1. Heavily tax billionaires to the point that majority of tax revenue is dependent on them<p>2. Get rid of billionaires at some point.<p>3. ????<p>Governments don't ever save enough money to make themselves self-sustaining without tax/etc revenue, and personally, i do not want a self-sustaining government anyway.<p>So how does this end well, exactly, except in a fairy tale?