#2 and #5 sure sound like a couple of premises behind the Labor movement, @zensky.
However, what #4 misses, is the velocity of money. Let’s say you have Richie Rich, who can only spend so much money on things like food, cars, and mink faucets, that he just decides to stuff a bunch of leftover money in a box under his bed. It’s doing nobody any good there, including Richie, unless he’s saving for something big, like a mink showerhead. Anyway, let’s say instead that it’s taxed away (the new “under bed tax”) and instead it’s used to pay Joe Sixpack to rebuild an aging bridge. Not only is there a new bridge to help Richie get his goods to market, Joe will also have a dollar to buy some of those goods. And the cashier, who will keep her job because more Joe Sixpacks are buying goods, will have money to spend,too. It’s the Keynesian multiplier, and it’s real. And all those people are wealthier now that they taxed that dollar out from under Richie Rich’s bed.
#3 is amply demonstrated in my example up there, but I’d say that it’s not necessarily always a bad thing to “take from someone else” in that circumstance. How did Richie get so rich? Because Joe Sixpack and Betty Cashier buy his goods, pay for his infrastructure, and generally make this a good place to do business. He didn’t get there in a vacuum, and it’s worth paying for, to keep it good for everyone.