There are lots of arguments for wealth redistribution, but they boil down to two. One of them is that socialism is just. I find that absurd--socialism is unjust.
The other argument is as follows: if there are enough of them and they get poor and desperate enough, they will burn down our houses, rape and murder our loved ones, and smash all of our things to bits. If things get bad enough, there will be a revolution and they will kill us all. That is not in our best interest.
The reason I'm replying, though, is that I wanted to opine that a Social Safety Net != Socialism.
Two of the largest vectors of wealth redistriubution in the last couple years are extended UIC and subsidized health/COBRA benefits. I think it's quite difficult to argue that we'd be better of having these 30MM unemployed people without ANY income or ANY health coverage.
If for no other reason than that's 30 MM fewer consumers.
The other argument is as follows: if there are enough of them and they get poor and desperate enough, they will burn down our houses, rape and murder our loved ones, and smash all of our things to bits. If things get bad enough, there will be a revolution and they will kill us all. That is not in our best interest.