Do you have anything I can read that explains why this must be true? I dont have a natural intuition that this has to be the case, nor one that its definitely f

Do you have anything I can read that explains why this must be true? I dont have a natural intuition that this has to be the case, nor one that its definitely false either though. 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.