See, this is the paradigm gap I can never get past.
Your statement makes sense only if you go by the premise that wealth "is," or that there is some kind of "reservoir" of wealth, and somehow some people just got handed a larger share than they deserve. That the rich just "have" the wealth.
If you start from the premise that wealth is created, and earned by those who were responsible for its creation, the redistributionist argument collapses in flames. This is why liberals and leftists really don't want to go there. "The rich don't deserve what they have, so we get to take it from them."
Just remember that once you establish the State as the arbiter, the line between the takers and producers can be drawn anywhere.