Yes, for several reasons. 1. Ignore, for a second, the diminishing marginal utility argument. What do most poor people spend their money on? Food, household it

Yes, for several reasons. 1. Ignore, for a second, the diminishing marginal utility argument. What do most poor people spend their money on? Food, household items, and rent in low-COL areas. Mostly, these are commodity goods. What do most rich people spend their money on? Trophy properties, expensive wines, and brand-name art-- in other words, items whose value is indexed to the status they confer. If you give the poor more money, their standard of living will improve. If you give the rich more money, the things they buy just become more expensive, and their standard of living doesn't change that much. The same argument holds when taxes are increased. 2. The rich get more, even on a percentage basis, from the government. If the government builds a road to a factory, each worker is a stakeholder in the project, using the road to get to work every day. However, the factory owner is a much bigger stakeholder; not only does the road enable him to get to work every day, but it also enables his workforce to do so. He's getting a lot more out of that road. 3. Money is the world's first AI algorithm-- an algorithm to allocate resources and manage society. Like many crude algorithms put to complex problems, it does a terrible job of this if left to its own devices, making improvements for a few iterations but later diverging to a degenerate state, and needs constant correction through means such as progressive taxation.