In a basic way, all taxes are "wealth redistribution". If you tax every taxpayer $0.02 for public roads and non-tax payers get to use them, well, that's redistr

In a basic way, all taxes are "wealth redistribution". If you tax every taxpayer $0.02 for public roads and non-tax payers get to use them, well, that's redistribution - and nobody (seriously) has problems with this. The problem comes with policies of the form "We're going to tax [some wealthy group] and redistribute the money to [some other group]". There's a few sets of issues: 1. The money never gets to the downstream group. It gets eaten up by fees and processing, etc. Great for the middleman but not anyone else. If it does get to the downstream group, the total amount is gravely reduced. 2. You have to make a very strong case for taxing [some wealthy group]. Simply having wealth doesn't seem a good basis for taxation - "You're successful so we're going to charge you more taxes, maybe next time you won't be so successful" Obviously there are other arguments that can be made - the wealthy stole their money, or gained it illictly, etc - but those arguments tend to be individual cases and don't allow acting against an entire class of people unless you go into weird theoretical territory. 3. Solving "wealth disparity" isn't a meaningful goal. A thousand homeless folks all in the same campground have no wealth disparity - that doesn't mean you've improved their life. Simply funneling money doesn't solve problems, and making the end goal to shift around bits of paper is mistaking a process for a goal. If your goal is "We should provide a base level of healthcare to those who can't afford it" and can name an actual price for that, then that's a meaningful goal and you can tax appropriately if voters approve it.