Hey, I'm all for what is called "redistribution" although, I would simply call it "distribution"
But no matter. Whatever you choose to call it really isn't important. A rose by any other name, right?
But here's the point behind "distribution", and it's one that was figured out quite well by a capitalist.
Henry Ford realized that the ideal situation both for himself and his company would be if his own workers could afford to buy the products they were making. So, on a purely hypothetical basis let's say his personal take home profit was 20 million dollars, but if he cut that to 15 or 10 million dollars and upped his workers wages, they could all buy brand new model-T's (or whatever) and probably at the same time, if they saved responsibly, scrape together enough for a downpayment on a home in their town.
So, Mr. Ford personally takes a cut to his profit. But his company sees increased sales, his workers are happier and more productive, therefore increasing his company's productivity, and his shareholders are happier that the company's making a healthier profit AND more productive, and this has the added bonus of attracting more investors.
On top of it, the town is very happy with Ford as all the Ford factory workers are buying houses and adding to the municipalities revenue through property taxes and the like, meaning that the town can afford to pave the roads and upgrade their water treatment system (both of which benefit Ford indirectly anyway) All of the other businesses in town also benefit from the fact that Mr. Ford's workers are making more money because they are spending that money directly in the local economy on goods and services in the town (they aren't squirelling it away in swiss bank accounts!) So this causes other businesses to grow in town, and some of the employees of those businesses end up buying even more model-T's from Ford!
You see, Mr. Ford has learned the lesson that if more people can afford to buy his product and the local economy is better off, it will come back to benefit his company immensely or even cycle the money back to him indirectly (increased sales bring more investors, etc)
So, everyone can win, if we just go by the basic rule we supposedly learned in Kindergarten to share our toys.
The importance of this kind of "distribution" of wealth cannot be underestimated as it has many far-reaching implications.
When all of Mr. Ford's factory workers can afford a car, a house, and still put a little money in the bank...not going into debt... that means they're secure and happy, not living paycheque to paycheque. This does wonders for the community, and means that the children of the Ford factory workers will probably get a decent education and good upbringing (usually when parents are happy so are kids). The Ford factory workers themselves, now that they are not worrying about taking out a predatory payday loan to pay the light bill, will probably get a little more active in politics whether at the municipal, state or federal level.
This goes back to the whole educated citizenry thing. When people have the time and aren't worrying about survival, they generally tend to improve themselves. When people improve themselves everyone benefits. As Mr. Ford's workers improve themselves, not only are they happier but perhaps they are more innovative on the job and come up with some creative ways to increase production. Going one step further, many of his brighter employees will be prime candidates for manager positions a few years down the road, which will be easier on Ford as it won't have to bring in someone from outside the company and get them established in town.
But anywho. Let's zoom out for a moment- this goes back to a basic law of nature. Any system, whether it be an organism or weather system, does it's best when at equilibrium. All systems in nature attempt to reach and maintain equilibrium.
What is equilibrium?
It's more or less a sustainable distribution of energy. If you'll harken back to your days in high school math (or if you took physics or electronics) life is a sine wave. It always has and always will be!
Society functions best when as much of the waveform as possible is above the poverty line... if you have too much power concentrated in only a few hands, you end up getting something called a pure carrier, which is a graph that has a very, very sharply steeped curve that rises very far while pretty much everything else is down at the noise floor. If you distribute the energy, you have the bulk of the populace doing good, with a little bit at the top and a little bit at the bottom with everyone else in the middle- the middle class! Overall, the peak of the carrier ends up being much lower than a pure carrier, but this leads to the question-
What situation results in society being better off?
1) Are we better off if most of the power is concentrated in a few hands while everyone else gets almost nothing?
2) Are we better off if the power is distributed more or less equally. Yes, there is still a "top" but it is considerably lower than if all the power was concentrated, whereas more people are better educated and generally well off.
If wealth is not "distributed" or redistributed or whatever you want to call it, then we will eventually end up back in a Feudal society in which the have's live in castles while the have-nots end up doing all the work and fighting wars between fiefs on behalf of the haves!
If wealth is not distributed then we will go back to the days of debtor prisons and company towns in which the workers are forever beholden to the company store for their entire lives....coal mining towns from the 19th century anyone?