I mean, I hope you're right. Because if not, this kind of policy is basically sprinting toward having a society of people with no market-useful skills and a strong sense of entitlement. That may be egalitarian, but it doesn't sound like a "higher utility" to me.
This is their opportunity to repay their governments for those advantages.
You do not have the right to rob Peter to pay Paul.
It's not robbery, it's the cost of being part of society. Those billionaires rely on the laws, created and enforced by the government, to maintain their status and possessions. If it's a government of and for all the people in the country, then the government absolutely has moral authority to tax citizens relative to their ability to contribute, and to aid citizens relative to their need for aid.
Mostly via the government, through food stamps, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc. So the precedent is already there, and already consumes somewhere near 2/3 of your taxes today. Charity provides comparatively little for your average poverty stricken family.
If Paul got his wealth off the back of Peter and the government they both keep in power, is it theft to want Paul to help Peter when he can no longer work?
You could just as easily say that we as a "Great" nation and society decide that we will not allow our poor and underprivileged to be impoverished so that a few billionaires can die with a little more in their pile. It's not a demand of the proletariat, it's the middle and upper class deciding that they want a more egalitarian society because it has a higher utility.