Your answer is little better than that of a moderate Democrat co-worker who once opined to me that the graduated income tax was fair because, in some way, a dollar bill in the pocket of a rich man becomes materially different when placed into a beggar's cup. The notion is sheer nonsense, yet it has persisted for decades as a central feature of our system of taxation.
If there is any truth at all to that idea, it lies in the fact that in the hands of the rich man that dollar will do FAR more work, and spawn far more secondary benefits for others than it will in the hands of the beggar. I realize, of course, that if this truth were to become widely known, our tax brackets would have to be inverted; that the lowest income-earners should actually pay a higher percentage in taxes for not having put their money to more beneficial uses.
Tax the rich? No! Tax the poor!
Why, it's even Biblical to boot!
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
— St. Matthew 13:12
Well, there is the idea of diminishing marginal brnefit that you can't dismiss out of hand. The first white castle burger is a lot more satisfying than the 12th. An unexpected thousand bucks is certainly more welcome by somebody really struggling to make the rent than by somebody with millions.
If the vast majority of rich people didn't agree with the idea, they wouldn't generously give to those with less. None of this means it is the right of anybody to decide for others how others money should be allocated