> Not that I have any intent to defend this abstract group of people, but I don't generally get the impression that wealthy people who advocate for a greater social security net do so without understanding that it would necessarily be funded by their taxes. If they do, though, it's certainly a nonsensical and unrealisable position.

Why would it be nonsensical? There is no wealth tax in US, their property taxes are capped by prop 13, their Roth withdrawal and re-balancing are tax free. Worst case scenario they will pay some long term capital gains tax, which is still somehow much lower than income tax. So what is left? VAT? Try suggesting increasing VAT and those people will lecture you for an hour how it would be "sO ReGreSsiVe!!1".

> That said, I don't get how this eleven-dimensional chess play to have the peasants pay for their healthcare costs during their retirement would be worth the effort.

I don't see how this is some eleven-dimensional plot. They leeched every single dollar they could while everything around them was slowly crumbling and turning into basically a big homeless camp, now they would like someone else to pay from the _income_ for tidying the place up while their _wealth_ is safely tucked away.

> If that's their end goal, wouldn't it be much easier to advocate for less public services and less taxation on the rich, pocket the difference into their investment plans, and use _that_ to fund their private healthcare plans?

Now that would indeed be a "nonsensical and unrealisable position" in California.