> But it could cost millions to try and replace right person with specialized skills.
I don't quite get what you are getting at in this paragraph. There are some (as far as I can tell not many) people who are really hard to replace (in the sense of work they do, in a genral sense everybody is irreplacable, but I'm guessing this is not what we are talking about), but I don't think this correlates particularly well with how wealthy they are, and I'm neither sure that this is what you wanted to say, nor what the implications for wealth taxation would be if it was true.
> it may be beneficial to live and die by the community
I'm not advocating for massive collectivism here, so I'm not sure why you got this impression. Wealth taxation rules out only extreme individualism, about the same as any other kinds of taxation or, for that matter, living in a modern state. Even eliminating wealth disparity, which I implied I would be in favour of, does not preclude individualism.
> I feel that wealth pooling between friends and family is due to this reason.
"People should rely on their social circle in times of need" is a bold argument to make just after criticizing something for excessive collectivism. ;P
While I think I get the distinction you are hinting at here, I'm pretty sure it's actually contrary to your goals. If you want more individualism then leaving people's material security at the whims of their family is almost certainly a bad idea. Not to mention the practical problems that stem from this approach – in sufficiently poor communities if you earn some money through lots of effort, you are expected, exactly by this principle, to share it with a lot of people. Since you cannot accumulate any resources at all, you get stuck needing lots of effort to acquire more money, keeping you poor. In such cases you have to literally escape your community to escape poverty.
