Well said. The proponents of wealth redistribution do not care (or do not believe) that taking money from the rich will result in a less productive economy.
And to a certain extent why should they it can not be proven to be true. You can not turn back the clock and rerun the economy under free market rules and demonstrate that the economy was more profitable and more productive.
All we have is history and economic history is viewed differently by Liberal and Conservatives
Liberals look at the free(er) market days of Reagan and see growing deficits while Conservatives see record breaking government income.
But the simple fact is that any time government passes laws that attempt to force people to act against their natural human nature the results will be contrary to the intended outcome and most likely counter productive.
When government taxes the production of a good or service it creates a disincentive for the production of that product. If the tax is too high it may totally eliminate the production of that product or create a black market for that product.
Government’s intervention in the economy is nearly always counter productive. It certainly can not be shown to be productive in any historical example.
Economic productivity is maximized when government taxes minimally and people are free to pursue their own self interest with out government intervention.
There is a reason for that. In 1986 the Democrats wanted a tax increase but they knew Reagan would veto it so they conned him. They told him that if he would sign the tax increase then they would cut spending $2 for every $1 in tax increase. He kept his word but the Democrats didn't. They never intended to and now they blame the resulting deficit on Reagan.
Liberal 'victims" don't care where the money comes from as long as it is given to them. Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? That's the farmer's problem, not theirs.