I agree in spirit, but I think one thing posts like these fail to take into consideration is that valuation of billionaires' assets include everything, not just their cash, it's mostly the businesses, etc. that they own--in other words, the means of production. Multibillionaires probably only have like $100,000,000 or so in actual cash. So, what they really have is simply power, which comes from having created a successful economic machine that organizes labor, the supply chain, etc., and hence being able to run it. So, if you were to take a significant amount of money away from, say, Elon Musk, you could only do it through making him sell his companies. And who's to say whoever takes ownership instead would be any better for the community? And what would you do about the need to tax them, in turn, too? The only other choices are 1. make him liquidate his companies, which would cost a lot of jobs and deprive the economy/society of a very useful functions/services/products, or 2. have him pay the government by handing over the companies, in which case "tax the rich" becomes something more like "give government the ownership of industry/the means of production," or in other words socialism.

Personally, I think a greater economy = more misery, exploitation and suffering and unsustainable ecological destruction, and I'm a democratic socialist, but that's neither here nor there.