[danielvf]

The 1% for the most part aren't billionaires. Last year in the US, the threshold was just under $285,000. Ignoring professionals, plenty of small business owners can hit that on a lucky year. (And get hammered other years). There are a lot of jobs in the US with companies with fewer than 50 people.

Confiscating the assets of the 1% to create economic prosperity has been tried a few times before, and usually turns out horribly in ten years. You've removed the people who risk their own money from society, and replaced it with only assest allocation by bureaucrats.

Plus, as soon as you removed the one percent, then you have a new one percent.

See Dekulakization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

[kuschku]

The solution isn't in removing them, but in going back to the top tax rates of the 1950s/1960s/1970s, which were around 70% for the top bracket.

With that, you can then reduce the taxes for the lower economic classes, and fund better infrastructure and education.

[slackingoff2017]

As much as I like the idea of wealth redistribution I have the same doubts it will work. A similar phenomenon happened in South Africa when it was tried. The initial wealth distribution worked okay but it got rid of owners that knew how to run a business and replaced them with corrupt politicians.

As much as many of the 1% don't deserve it... A lot of them have that much money for a reason. The ones I knew, the "new money", were generally extremely intelligent and hard working before they made their millions. A lot of them are on permanent vacation now but if all of us had that much brains, charm, and grit it would be a lot easier to get rich.

[arvinsim]

> A lot of them are on permanent vacation now but if all of us had that much brains, charm, and grit it would be a lot easier to get rich.

Don't forget that sometimes luck is a big part of the reason why some of those people are successful.