Short version of many great points. If you redistribute wealth in order to support consumption, you get no wealth -- no savings, investment, factories, etc. Poor people will not leave 99% of their new wealth invested in productive capital as billionaires do.
And another thing that’s related…
Wealth / income is stupid for another reason and it’s under-appreciated and under-discussed. The super rich are not about to consume (e.g., buy 14% of everything) more than a tiny fraction of their wealth. Consumption inequality is way lower than income or wealth inequality (another way of saying the rich save/invest more). What a rational re-distributionist wants to re-distribute is consumption because they care about the poor and middle class living better. That’s actually harder to do than you think. When you move some wealth from the super-rich to others, and the super-rich don’t change their consumption, because barring gigantic confiscation (don’t give comrade Zuc any ideas) they don’t have to, you don’t just magically get more goods for the whole world to consume. On the other hand, because their MPC is higher, it is far easier to redistribute from say the middle class to the poor (you cut their wealth and they will consume less), which is essentially one big reason why Europe is more regressive than the USA. This is not a nefarious plot it’s just “maths.” Unless you think all “maths” are a nefarious plot.
Oh, I stipulated a “rational re-distributionist” above. What is an irrational re-distributionist? Funny you should ask. It’s one actually not trying to make the poor (and maybe the middle-class) better off, but one just filled with hate who just wants to hurt the rich.
Guess which one the French Socialists and their Stiglitz back-up singer are?