We may not literally need billionaires for jobs to exist, but we need savings and investment for highly productive jobs. A wealth tax is borne over time by assets that are saved and invested; it obviously isn't by the portion that's consumed. If you tax Bezos' and other billionaires' wealth, Amazon and other firms will face sharply higher costs of capital, which can indeed be seen as a partial "dissolution".

You don't fix this by penalizing people that are successful. You fix this by preventing companies from buying all their competitors, or unfairly running them out of business. If we actually enforced existing anti-trust laws, with an eye toward NEVER allowing any company grow to be too big to fail via acquisition, we wouldn't be in this mess. (Note that companies that actually grow organically (Amazon/AWS is a good example) aren't hindered by this. Their success attracts other competitors (Azure, GCP, even IBM and Oracle), and competition is what should be encouraged for the good of society.)

> You don't fix this by penalizing people that are successful.

Let's start at people who's net worth are > 1 billion then. That's 607 people in the USA. IMO worth it, considering their outsized political power.

Interesting, so billionaires directly affect the majority of jobs, and the rest of the jobs may be indirectly affected by billionaires and their job prowess as well. GDP growth is roughly 2% a year. Everyone here ok with GDP contraction for our future? How do we fund all the social experiments that many people want?

GDP growth doesn't matter to normal people if all of the growth goes to billionaires. Wages have been static for decades.

Over the past 3 years much of that growth has gone to “normal” people.

That doesn't seem line up with anything I've read about. Can you elaborate?