It's not really ideological but practical. If you don't want accrual of resources into small pockets of people, it needs to be mixed around. The "entitlement"

It's not really ideological but practical. If you don't want accrual of resources into small pockets of people, it needs to be mixed around. The "entitlement" the government has is their transitory monopoly on violence. And in a functioning democracy that monopoly is exercised according to how society at large believes it will benefit them. It's important to remember money arises naturally but the dynamics of how its used and its value is partly a top-down decision. It's really a tool of persuasion not some universal marker of value. The stock market wouldn't fluctuate wildly around meme stocks etc if that were true. Argentinians can tell you that the underlying economy might not always reflect the market value of money itself. I'm not villifying big capital , it's just prudent to be wary of it as a phenomenon. Big capital allowed for huge distributed tech/infrastructure creation like computers (with a nudge from the gov). All the actors within those organisations are just acting 'rationally' within the contraints that have been set for them. But these current constraints might not be what's best for society in the long term. The reason you would need it back is to preserve the system (for those who are being taxed also)- as money accrues, the ability to rent-seek rises which raises costs for all of society and reduces productivity and more importantly the well-being of the population. Past a point workers won't feel invested in working, elites will start infighting to get a foot in the shrinking doorway.