Nobody needs more than a billion dollars. Nobody even
needs more than 10 million dollars.
But that isn't really the question(s). The real questions are:
1. Can you morally take what others have, just because they have more than enough? By what standard of morality? And, given that "don't take other peoples' stuff" has worked out pretty well as a standard of morality, what justification is there for choosing a different one?
2. More broadly, there will be collateral damage from any approach to take wealth from the wealthy. Will that collateral damage leave society better or worse off than the status quo?
Probably the most minimalistic way to do it would be a progressive tax on wealth above 10 million dollars. But even that would lead to massive attempts to hide assets (or get them out of the country), and more and more invasive attempts to detect such things. And the invasiveness itself is damaging to society.
But that isn't really the question(s). The real questions are:
1. Can you morally take what others have, just because they have more than enough? By what standard of morality? And, given that "don't take other peoples' stuff" has worked out pretty well as a standard of morality, what justification is there for choosing a different one?
2. More broadly, there will be collateral damage from any approach to take wealth from the wealthy. Will that collateral damage leave society better or worse off than the status quo?
Probably the most minimalistic way to do it would be a progressive tax on wealth above 10 million dollars. But even that would lead to massive attempts to hide assets (or get them out of the country), and more and more invasive attempts to detect such things. And the invasiveness itself is damaging to society.