> The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% (which includes housing wealth as well as pension wealth). Even assuming tapping billionaires' wealth is a zero-i

> The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% (which includes housing wealth as well as pension wealth). Even assuming tapping billionaires' wealth is a zero-impact answer, that doesn't necessarily help you if you're in a random municipality which has overpromised on its pension plan. As one example, take San Jose, which is Bay Area but not prime Bay Area (and beginning to see pension problems) and could easily see its richest citizens moving a few cities away to somewhere like Cupertino or Mountain View if it means a 5% savings on income tax. And what of cities like Stockton, CA, which was already bankrupted by its pensions and doesn't exactly have a bevy of billionaires to tap? I guess you could hope for the day that the federal government decides to send a bunch of its money to your own local government, but the rest of the nation is likely to resent that so they might not approve of the measure.