And what about the taxpayers? They lose. I'm not necessarily opposed to wealth transfers in principle, but they absolutely are a zero sum game.
I've always wondered if you just took billions from the richest Californians and gave that money to the poorest Californians if the people that had their money taken would actually be better of in the long run.
If you increase the amount and velocity of money going through the economy could it not be possible that the rich that had their wealth transferred actually end up better off? I suppose it would largely depend on where the taken capitol had been invested and or if it was just sitting in low yield savings accounts.
To prove an extreme case, if I point a gun at you and say “$1k or I shoot”, you’re likely to pay. You gained not dying, but are you richer? Or did I merely use my power to impose an urgent need on you that you needed to pay for?