There are two points I would comment on specifically:
People become rich by two simultaneous decisions: (1) to forego consumption now for future returns, and (2) by investing the money they didn't spend in businesses that yield a good return.
In an ideal world this would be the only way to get rich. In the real world many people also get rich by 1) inheriting 2) pure luck 3) questionable (illegal or unethical) businesses. Many rich people also slowly get even more rich by investing very conservatively (which every idiot can do)
If you take away their wealth and redistribute it,
I have not proposed to "take way their wealth and redistribute it" (nice strawman ) .
the primary effect is not to give people a more equal vote in what to consume, the primary effect is to shift the economy from investments in jobs, production, and the future towards consumption, which is generally the wrong direction.
You need both: investments and consumption. If you take away consumption too much, you end up in exactly the situation we are now: People are not primarily investing in things which are useful to average people, but they invest in tools which may make existing businesses slightly more profitable. It is simply not worth investing in a business creating a tech tool useful for an average people if average people do not have money buy it. Instead they invest in a companies which sell tools to other rich people which help them become even more rich (e.g. spying tools for advertisers so that you may be able to sell slightly more products than your competitor by "better" advertisment). Ofcourse, you can now argue that this is somehow the ideal way to spent money for our society, but I do not buy it.