> I don't really see any other solution, can you explain it?

One reason a wealth tax is controversial and less precedented is that it taxes unrealized gains.

Another alternative would be to raise taxes on high income rather than wealth. In the 1950s people were taxed at something like 90% for every dollar over $400,000. We could go back to something like that but adjust that $400,000 to something like a couple of million, to match inflation.

This essentially puts a cap on wages. The money you make below the cap would be taxed at the same rates we pay today. Once you get above that amount, you keep most of what falls below, but the government would take almost all of what's above the cap.

I think if you do it that way you would also have to tax interest and capital gains similarly to wages. That's another loophole that's very commonly exploited in the last few decades, investment income gets taxed lower.

Taking? From who? They got this money by appropriation and not by mutually agreed upon transactions?

Taking via

- government lobbying for tax codes and loopholes, made specifically to benefit them

- abuse of various systems like H1B's and even SNAP (e.g. Wal-Mart) to subsidize their lack of payment to american taxpayers

- extracting value from public research (funded by taxpayers) and creating private products for sale. Sometimes they may even try to patent such breakthroughs for themelves despite public invention

- engaging in dark patterns and anti-competitive, anti-union behavior to extract wealth in ways that would potentially be proven illegal... had they not paid off the judges

- Performing untold of, actually illegal grifts (cases like SBF are only the tip of the iceberg)

And at this rate we may have to throw in "abusing funds to protect against the most heinous criminals imaginable".

Need I go on? There's pratically no such thing as a billionaire who earned their net worth.