Definitely. There's a conversation to be had about which billionaires do we want. Most Americans have a favorable opinion of Bill Gates [0], but not Jeff Bezos [1]. And there's good arguments for having large-scale philanthropic efforts be semi-privatized.
A "punitive tax on interest income" is popular with the left because it is, on paper, very progressive and avoids taxing the poor. But in truth, I don't think people actually want fewer billionaires, they just don't want aristocratic billionaires.
It also doesn't help that it's so unclear what the money would be spent on.
A mildly-punitive tax on high levels of personal consumption (including imputed consumption. such as business owners using business assets for private use, etc.) would seem to be a lot less distortionary and more socially-beneficial than a punitive tax on wealth, and just as politically sensible. What it doesn't have, unfortunately, is the raw appeal of soundbites like "soak the rich!" and "you didn't build that!".
There's a cool related video of Greg Mankiw [0]. He talked about two "redistribution" schemes:
1. $1000 per month to those with zero income, phased out at 20c / dollar extra income, financed by 20% tax on all income above $60k
2. Transfer of $1000 per month to everyone, financed by 20% flat tax on income
Apparently a group of Harvard students he asked were strongly in favor of the former, without realizing that the two plans are equivalent. It's all about framing.
A "punitive tax on interest income" is popular with the left because it is, on paper, very progressive and avoids taxing the poor. But in truth, I don't think people actually want fewer billionaires, they just don't want aristocratic billionaires.
It also doesn't help that it's so unclear what the money would be spent on.
[0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figu... [1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figu...