That actually sounds like a worthwhile experiment. I doubt the 100 richest would be worse off or at a lack for opportunities to become rich again. And I bet giving $40K to a family of four (since you include children in your 300m count) in poverty would on average go to significant good use and provide excellent returns for many years to come, contrary to your condescending implication that non-rich people would waste the money.

I have no ill will towards those who've earned their incomes through building legitimate businesses or have otherwise prospered through capitalism. I do find it frustrating however that this system has gone into overdrive, fueled by the banking, tech, and energy sectors, to the point where, even after recovering from the most devastating economic crisis the world has ever seen, the concentration of wealth in the United States has risen even higher, bordering on criminal proportions (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-f...)

If you asked the Fed (or most people who understand economics) they would tell you giving people money does help stimulate the economy, but you're not solving any income inequality issues by doing so. Obviously your not seriously suggesting the solution above.

Listening to those who hold a substantial chunk of this concentrated wealth tell the rest of the world that financial inequality will soon become the biggest global concern hits a bit of an oxymoronic chord, wouldn't you agree?

No single human being, or family for that matter, needs the amounts of money the ultra wealthy keep in their bank accounts. The ultra wealthy who pose concern for the problems the ultra wealthy have created should do something proactive with their fortune instead of preaching from the pulpit.

Whatever form that proactivity takes is up to the individual. Eric Schmidt should ask Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffett for advice on how to use his own wealth for good. On the sliding scale of responsible wealth holders, I think Eric Schmidt exists outside the realm of the Gordon Geckos of the world, so I don't mean to give him a hard time, but it is a serious problem when those who are uniquely qualified to help in this specific circumstance (the sole qualification here is being ultra wealthy) choose to spout doom and gloom instead of making a real and substantial positive contribution.

That doesn't make sense. If the billionaires haven't returned, then the money is still more evenly distributed than before.

This is, I think, an absurd extrapolation of the argument that the original commenter may have been hinting at. (And anyway, since the problem at hand is inequality - despite your belief that the situation will remain the same, which can be argued for or against - "no more billionaires" would mark this end as achieved.