>It is coming from mainly workers and renters and the sums are concentrated into a single parasitic entity.
If you're trying to imply that absent landlords, every renter in Manhattan is going have $3000 (or whatever) more in their bank accounts per month and can buy so many iPhones and steaks, it quickly breaks down when you think of second order effects:
1. There are only so many apartment units in Manhattan. How do you dole them out? First come first served? How's that any different than the current situation where boomers are set for life, and young people are locked out of the housing market unless they're rich or they inherit? Everyone giving up $3000/month for a place to live in might not be ideal, but it's better than the alternative. In areas without a rental market, but where supply exceeds demand, a black market eventually develops where it basically turns into rent.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58317555
2. If there's no cost for continuing to live in an apartment, what incentive is there to vacate a unit? Manhattan is expensive to live in because that's where the jobs are, but if lived there and then retired, why bother moving? It's not costing your anything, why bother uprooting your life, or even downsizing? Note that even owners have incentive to vacate their unit, because it means they can either rent it out for $$$, or sell it to someone else. Absent that you'll have to pry them from their cold dead hands.
3. How would new housing get built? Skyscrapers are expensive, so you need some of capital to build. It might be hard to picture, but not buying an iPhone means that the global economy has slightly more resources that can be put towards building a new apartment tower. So capital will still be needed. Who will provide it?