This would cost $40B a year, which comes out to roughly $400/year for each remaining household that chooses to carry the burden. To a lot of families, that's a lot of money. Is it moral to forcibly take it from them and give it to someone who is willfully idle? Also, would the idleness rate really be 1% as in this example? I think it would be much, much higher.
consider this: there is a factory. it employs 100 workers, generates some amount of value which is split between worker salaries and profits for the owner. now someone invents a robot which can replace 90 of those workers, and cost the less to run and maintain than those workers' salaries. should the factory owner make the switch? of course he should, it's insane to make humans work when a machine can do their jobs. but now what about the people who were working there? they could be forced to retrain and find new jobs (not always possible). they could be kicked out to fend for themselves (what happens now). or the government could tax the means of production highly enough that it could pay them in welfare what they were making in salaries. the factory owner would be no worse off, the workers would be better off, and the government would have corrected for the fact that wealth tends to pool in the hands of the people who already have it, because they are the only ones who can afford to acquire the means of passively generating income.
in terms of morality it seems better than making person A "forcibly"[0] labour for person B simply because person B happened to start out with a lot more money.
[0] no one is putting a gun to his head, but if it's either work or starve you cannot call it uncoerced.
I really don't believe this strategy will accomplish any of these objectives in the way you intend. I don't mean to pick on your example or opinion; apologies if I come off as harsh.
the bugbear of international competition simply means that everyone involved gets caught up in a race to the bottom; the fact is that this would simply be a progressive tax on leveraged ways of making money. there's always an incentive to make more at a lower cost and effort, whether some of that more is taxed or not. i would go as far as to say that it's a basic human drive. the sticking point is, once you have a setup so productive that you do not need other people to contribute to it, what happens to the displaced people?
the current model seems geared towards "deserving" the means to acquire necessities and luxuries, by contributing something to the system, whether the system needs them to or not. however that leads to very strong inequities where the rich get richer and the poor lead lives of ever-increasing desperation, including the need to perform menial jobs at a "loss" (i.e. getting less for them than the human cost of doing them).
i also do not believe my scheme would destroy wealth, for the following reason: $100 would let a poor person eat better, a middle-class person buy a better cellphone, and a rich person tip his blackjack dealer. my contention is that the $100 is therefore worth strictly more in the hands of the poor person, and that "destroying wealth" is an illusion caused by the fallacy that $100 is $100 regardless.
but then it wouldn't be $400 per family...
there's a lot of money pooled at the top, where it's pretty much doing nothing.
In real life, we've been shifting ever-more-steadily towards a rentier economy as actual production grows more and more efficient.