Additionally, you never answered the original question. Basic logic would suggest that if you tax the rich until there are no more rich, the end result should be a society with neither rich nor poor. You suggest that the poor would remain poor. I asked where the money went. You had no answer.
I had an answer. You take all the money, and they end up poor - and the poor are no better off, either. By eliminating the super wealthy, do we eliminate the poverty line? Is that your assertion? If not - then eliminating the super-wealthy, and spreading their money around (not nearly enough of it to raise everyone out of poverty), all we've done is increase the number of poor.
Benjamin Franklin said it best: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became rich."