Supposing you're asking the question in good faith, the answer is: the people, democratically. For example: unoccupied/unused properties become commonly owned by the people, and their management and decisions about their use are done democratically by all, therefore serving the interests of the public, rather than that being decided by the owner class, therefore serving the interests of that select few.

Just because a property is unoccupied or unused doesn't mean it isn't owned by someone. You are still suggesting theft of private property. Just because a majority of people vote for something doesn't mean it is morally good. I think taxes are theft and immoral but I accept them because of what I believe about human nature.

It's simple, you start at the top, by imposing a 70% tax on the higher brackets as Cortez wants. If the marginalized group would get too wealthy (straw-man argument), the 70% tax would still do it's job.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/alexan...

I'm not saying higher taxes aren't something I want, but it's impossible to get by the heavily lobbied government

So remove the incentive to earn above a certain threshold?

If taking home 300 mil on a 1 bil income is not incentive to you...

Who earns $1B as income? I seriously don't think that is a thing. The big earning usually happens when companies or stock gets sold. And yes, it would hurt incentive and takes away funding from capital investment.