Frank, the historical precedents for political movements and governments that set out to achieve a "better distribution of wealth" are not good. Tyranny and sometimes mass murder usually results. Worse, the results achieved are usually disappointing. The Soviets achieved relatively equal distribution with more or less uniform poverty and loss of freedom for all. In better political climates the best result is usually low growth, economic stagnation followed by major economic crisis. Greece is an example.
The reason, of course, is that human behavior usually confounds the plans of those who presume to know what is good for everyone else. If you get free stuff you don't work as hard and see no reward for creativity and innovation. The best and most procuctive people find a way to leave, escape or go underground. Networks of influence peddlers and criminals end up getting a bigger share of the smaller pie than others, etc.
Historically the best distributions of wealth usually involve the greater production of it, That requires incentives for the most creative and productive folks whose contributions are needed for that.
I am truly amused by Hillary's declared interest in this political point. She is the queen of well-connected elitism. Unfortunately the poor slobs who buy her **** don't yet see that.