The whole debate about whether redistribution of wealth is good or bad isn't really based on anything in reality. The economic system, the tax code, and all manner of other policies and practices set the rules of the economic game. Those rules can be adjusted to favor one industry, group, individual, class, or company or another to varying degrees. It's like a whole set of dials that can be turned to favor this group or that, but there is no setting on any of the dials that favors everybody equally or is neutral or somehow more natural or anything like that. If you raise interest rates 0.25% that causes money to move from one guy to another. If you leave them as they are, that just causes the money to move to somebody else.
Some people argue that those rules are currently too favorable to the uberwealthy, other people argue that they aren't. Either way, the rules our economy operates under are 'redistributing wealth' no matter what we do. It's not a question of whether or not it's good to have a hand in directing the wealth or not. That's inevitable in any set of rules. The question is whether the current set of rules for how the wealth gets distributed could be improved or not, and if so, how could they be improved.
Voluntary wealth redistribution can be a good thing. Use your your money to give to somebody in need and you have the satisfaction of being a good person while nobody else is required to agree with your choice or contribute to your project. That is freedom and results in a stronger, more satisfying social contract and quality of life.
Government forced wealth redistribution is something quite different. Now the government forces you to give up property that is legally and ethically yours and give it to somebody else who may or may not use it wisely or responsibly or to good advantage. That is a form of slavery that our Founders never intended to be imposed on a free people. Once the government has the power to do that, everything you own or will ever have will be at the disposal of the government. And you are no longer free.
Even if the government restricts such activities just enough so that the people don't rise up in rebellion, it is a hugely corrupting influence on both government and those receiving from the government.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
I will not oppose any wealth re-distribution scheme that:
1) Takes only from people promoting the scheme,
2) Leaves the promoters of the scheme below the national poverty level,
3) and forever forbids those promoters the opportunity to receive stolen wealth.
If they can't put their own money where their big lying mouths are, their scams shouldn't be allowed.
Everyone had equal opportunity to rise or sink to the level they deserve.
Can't get more equal than that.
It certainly never was written to impose any kind of nonsensensical equal-income, equal wealth society.
But I'm here to guide you.