The government spent $6.8 trillion last year. Do think at some time in November they were like "Damn, we were just about to end homelessness, but we came up $100 billion short. Oh well!"
Imagine if you had an employee who wasn't doing their job. Is the solution to give them a raise?
Edit: it's also worth nothing that this reasoning is perfectly symmetrical. Why in the world should I continue to allow a billionaire to profiteer, at the cost of immense civic damage?
1. Because creating a valuable company that provides a useful service is not profiteering.
2. Because creating a company did not cause civic damage in the first place.
3. Therefore confiscating the value of that company and transferring it to the government could not reverse any civic damage.
4. Destroying the engine of wealth creation in our society would cause immensely more civic damage.
This is also symmetrical in that once you realize this will not solve any problems - and that it will in fact create many more problems, you can then conclude it is not a civically appropriate thing to do. Even if it gives a sense of satisfaction to envious people "intuitively reason" that knocking people down a peg is "civically appropriate".
I'm really just interested in taxing them a bit more, because I don't think it's healthy for democratic, pluralistic societies to have such large wealth gaps. There are enough things to dislike about each other without bringing in immense, unspendable amounts of money.
We could instead work on ways to make poor people richer, which would actually make their lives better instead of making someone else life worse, and would also reduce the wealth gap. Somehow none of the “tax the rich” crowd seem interested in that.
Sociologically speaking, we have decent evidence that eliminating privation can break generational cycles of poverty. Our own (broadly successful!) attempt at it is still within living memory, as is its dismantling[1].
You're also pinballing between "the government needs more money to give to poor people" and "we should just take rich people's money because it makes poor people feel bad that some people are rich and it will make them feel better if the rich aren't so rich". Does the government actually need the money or not?
People might be temporarily helped by handouts, but they won't rise out of poverty until there's work available for them to support themselves. That is hampered by discouraging investment in productive enterprise via excessive taxes.
How much more exactly? How do you know when to stop raising taxes? You think current wealth gap is unacceptable, well what kind of gap is acceptable?
The higher your taxes are, the lower is the incentive for innovation and investment. What makes you think that "a bit more" is going to be a net positive? Higher taxes have tendency to slow down the economy. Should US be growing slower than China, for instance?
While taxes do help transfer wealth from rich to poor, they do it through government, which is incredibly inefficient (and, in many countries, corrupt).
> I don't think it's healthy for democratic, pluralistic societies to have such large wealth gaps
There were some big movements that shared similar ideas. Somehow they all have a tendency to cause millions of deaths due to famine and repressions. I'd rather have my wealth gaps.
There are interesting discussions to be had around inequality, but I don't think simple solutions like "just raise taxes until inequality goes away" or "take away their wealth and give it to the poor" (like another commenter suggested) are productive.