This is just a rough estimate, if you reduce the rates of the top-earners by about 4%, you would need to raise the rates of the bottom-earners by about 22% to make up for it.
I went to grade-school and high-school where I was told what to eat. I lived with my parents until college, and I was told where to live. I lived in dormitories for about five years, I paid to be told where to live and what to eat. It was not a bad thing in my experience.
But really, we already live in this dystopian future of yours, where (not the government, but...) the companies keep all the people's earnings, and decide where the people live, and what they eat. But the companies don't make decisions based on what's good for the people. They make decisions based on what's good for the bottom-line; profit motive.
Right now, we have exactly the problem that you are describing, where the Federal Reserve can act completely without any oversight, spend all our earnings on whatever they want, and we don't have any oversight, knowledge, or say in the decision. Then they hand out allowances in the form of welfare, food-stamps.
My point is, we should be aiming at creating the best possible society that mankind can produce for itself, where people can have dignity, have fun, achieve goals, live without unnecessary fear and poverty, pursue their own core values, and live up to their potential. Instead, our society is aimed at one thing, and one thing only: the accumulation of wealth.