how much personal property can the government really take to support your ideas about outcome equality, still remains unanswered
I already answered that question: the bare minimum necessary to provide a lifestyle floor that ensures everyone's basic needs are met; food and shelter at least, but personally I'd throw in healthcare as well. Nothing beyond that.
I'm not sure why you don't think that's a specific enough answer. If you want to know what that costs specifically, go look up tax proposals that replace Social Security (and other cash transfer programs like SNAP) with UBI along with tax proposals that extend Medicare to all and drop Medicaid.
Many people have run the numbers and come up with balanced budgets that include these new provisions. Most agree taxes would need to go up to support such programs as well as to address the existing deficits, but it's been done before. We've had higher taxes before (especially on the wealthy) and things were just fine.
This isn't about equalizing outcomes, it's about raising the height of the floor so that nobody can fall into abject poverty ever again. There will still be enormous inequality of outcomes, as there should be, to reward those who work harder with greater wealth.
There will still be rich people, mansions, and suchlike. All that will be different is they will be slightly less rich. The net worth of the average one percenter may decline slightly, but it'll still be more than enough money to live a life of luxury and leisure and to never have to work again.
40 sports cars in the collection for the average aristocrat instead of 50. Or maybe one less vacation home. It's a small price to pay to end homelessness and hunger nationwide.