I kind of feel like redistribution of wealth is only called that when the money is going from the richest to the poorest. When money travels upwards systemically we don't here the right cry foul about "redistribution" do we? No, because then for some reason, it's all square. I don't know how they reconcile it.
I think there has to be some sort of cycle and if I have to pick which system makes more sense ultimately, I'd rather be bridging the gaps in our society than protecting those at the top.
I don't object to the redistribution of wealth due to "natural" forces (economics or capitalism), however, I do object to the idea that our government should be artificially moving wealth from one place to another.
The situation is complicated however, because the tax codes have to many loopholes which can be exploited by the very wealthy. At present, I don't believe that the ultra-wealthy pay an equitable share of tax due to the loopholes.
Ultimately, I would prefer to see a "flat" tax of some kind where everyone (and every business) pays the exact same percentage of what they earn. And if there are people (or businesses) at the bottom who need assistance, then I prefer to see that done with government assistance programs (food stamp type of things) rather than inequitable taxing. At least if it's done with assistance programs we can see where the money is going, but if it's done through taxation, then it's very hard to tell where the government is spending the money.