Redistribution from lucky people to unlucky people may be extremely desirable, or even morally necessary to allow unlucky people to pursue good lives for themselves — but the welfare of people in the future matters too, and there may be a trade-off between that and the welfare of people today if redistribution lowers economic growth.
You’re not a centrist. You’re a liberal
Sam Bowman
1.5K29

But it doesn’t. Even mainstream economists admit this — lower-income people have a higher propensity to consume, consumption drives economic growth, so putting money into their hands is a great idea. Well-off people, on the other hand, consume less, and are more likely to invest into stocks, which, apart from the IPO, add nothing to productive capacity.