You're first point ends up just being a slippery slope fallacy. If we take out the billionaires, it's just a hop and skip until we take out the people in mobile homes! Just using a single data point provided by census.gov is 'Real median household income was $80,610 in 2023'. A person who's a lowly billionaire (i.e. JUST has $1,000,000,000) made 12,405 YEARS worth of money. Someone who's JUST a millionaire ($1,000,000) would have 12 years. Which if you flip that, it's possible for someone to earn a million dollars w/o exploiting people. It's clearly not possible to become a billionaire (using USD as the base) w/o being an immortal being who had a successful career starting in 10,381 BCE. The order of magnitude ends up being overlooked since it's just the next thousand -> million -> billion. And to answer, when would it stop, it would probably stop naturally. Prices keep going up so billionaires can be multi billionaires and now we have one jack-ass gunning for being a trillionaire. And our taxes goes to subsidies these pricks too. If homes became affordable, if food was affordable, if our education system was up to snuff and affordable (K-12 and higher education), our healthcare was up to snuff, our roads were in good shape, our internet wasn't nickle and diming everyone... you'd see a general lack of interest in being pissed off. It would happen organically, just like it has in the past... the wealthy get got, things change, and we peasants get less "eat the rich" motivated.

To you're second point, yes the system is broken. But not everyone who's family of the one in control of the estate, agree with that person. Also, fear is a great motivator. Most people fear homelessness or starvation. The 1% don't fear much. Also, if vigilantes start taking out multiple 1%ers they're either going to hire a lot of security (putting money back into the system, back into the hands of the people) or they're going to start doing something to not be viewed as "dinner". And we literally saw that. UHC gets got... and Blue Cross Blue Shield immediately reverse the change on anesthesia. They claimed it was due to backlash, but they're a for profit company, they don't care. But the CEO being targeted and seeing the people cheer... that sends a message.

I don't think anyone has a clear plan as to what would be better. There's certainly a lot of ideas out there. But so long as the ultra rich control the government, control the means of communication (news outlets, social media) it's difficult/impossible for change that would negatively impact them that would positively impact the rest of society.

And you might not believe in it, but the French of utilized this method to much success. Honestly, we did to way back when if you want to throw in the revolutionary war.

The point is that the rich have purchased a system that protects them. If they're scared that people are resorting to other methods, because the system won't go after them, then they can choose to fix the system so people actually see results without murder. As long as they feel safe and cozy, they have no incentive to fix the system they rigged.