Wealth transfer is a polemical propaganda term. Taxing anyone for any reason is "wealth transfer."
Which was pointed out earlier.
All governments have to tax to survive so if wealth transfer is socialism then all governments are socialist.
A conceptually narrow statement that attempts to excuse "wealth transfer" with the argument that it's so broad that it happens everywhere and therefore is okay.
Here we go: Wealth transfer is generally used to describe a one-way transfer. Entitlements are paid out to recipients without financially benefiting a person having their taxes raised. There may be some moral comfort in the thought, or a more attenuated argument - general well being on the parts of the recipients benefits the 1% payer.
An infrastructure project, on the other hand (could also include police forces, schools, etc), all have GREAT potential to directly benefit the payer. Under this, rational basis review, a simply tax increase to fund an entitlement increase could easily be classified as a naked wealth transfer, while a similar increase to pay for a new highway system wouldn't.
Let me know if that went over any heads.