probably not if
"tax the hell out of wealth"
... right?
The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US:
http://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/news/a7635/german-vill...
That German gated community you linked has housing that is owned by a trust. I don't think you can ask residents of the U.S. to voluntarily hand over all their housing property to a trust, or require them to be Catholic to reside in it.
However, I think it could be possible to have many, many such trusts which cater to specific interest groups. How about communities which cater to different kinds of artists, musicians, writers, philosophers, etc...? If something like 60% of the US population could be covered this way, it would combine many of the best aspects of universal coverage with the benefits of meritocracy and the advantages of a voluntary basis.
By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense.
Many other cultures have a gift economy, where the powerful voluntarily redistribute their wealth in exchange for status. Culture is very powerful, often overpowering pure economics. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have already pledged huge fractions of their wealth towards the common good. On the other hand, the historical record on politically forcing the wealthy to hand over their wealth also supports the notion of voluntarism. It's the society and culture which are the overarching influences. If we changed the culture such that trusts supporting intentional communities were the way the wealthy could have a meaningful impact and legacy, then we could conceivably house over half of the US in virtually free housing.
Arguably, living, thriving creative communities would be far more meaningful than plaques in a museum, park benches, and buildings on a college campus. (Colleges are over-funded and in a bubble as it is.)
No, to tax rich people you have to seize the damn money.
People who fund raise for non-profits convince the wealthy to part with their wealth all the time. If we changed society to make this the way to have a legacy as a rich person, then it would happen. Cultures around the world have convinced their wealthy and powerful to do far wackier things than endow an intentional community.
History shows us that the crazy thing to do is to try and force very smart people with lots of resources and power to do something they find distasteful. The same thing to do is to change how people think, feel, and behave, using historical models as precedents.
Now of course they do everything they can to avoid taxes, but very few evade them. I'm not so wealthy, but if I can legally avoid paying a tax, I will. That's more available for my retirement, charitable causes, and my family. I don't expect more from the wealthy than I do of myself.
Even if you did manage to tax all the wealth without destroying it, it'd only provide 10 or 20 years of basic income. Which is a lot, but it is hardly enough to make or break a BI as long term policy.
Easy to say when it's not your wealth being taxed.
