Well, for one, how they got the damn money is open to debate, as I have pointed out countless times. Even modern neo-classical, free market types acknowledge that industries that are highly concentrated will accrue money far beyond what they would in an actual free market (which doesn’t exist). They would make money simply because of their size, and they would have advantages because of economies of scale. We know that concentration in most markets has massively increased over time, domestically and worldwide. It is also a fact that rich people like Bezos didn’t create their billions with their own hands. That would be impossible. He necessarily monopolized the value that others created, this cannot be debated, surpluses were created by countless people in the businesses he owns by people working for those businesses, and he was able to grab that value that they created because of the laws and policies we have put in place, and because of his power (and those like him) relative to those making the surplus value. We know that lots of money is made in the economy by playing around in financial markets, by betting on things, by others going into debt to those that already have money. No social worth at all, and the size of the financial system has exploded in recent decades, a sign of a dying system. Lots of money is made on land speculation. You buy a piece of property, and while it may increase in value because of investments you make, most of the appreciation in land values will be a result of economic development in the community. The proximity to that development is what resulted in appreciating land values. We know that lots of money is created when businesses create costs, which they then push off onto others, which increases their profits. We know that many businesses make profits because they pay such low wages that their workers qualify for food stamps and Medicaid (a further externalizing of their costs, this time onto government). We know that a large percentage of wealth is inherited and passed down during a person’s lifetime by rich relatives too, and when it is inherited we have progressively lessened estate taxes. So, it’s a joke to claim that the money was earned. Lots of it should never have been theirs in the first place.
And I am asking for a macroeconomic justification for doing this versus, say, increasing the minimum wage, increasing food stamps, or employing people to re-build our crumbling infrastructure (which you comically denied recently). You read the research on the multiplier in regards to food stamps versus giving Nancy Devos more money. Or the economic growth associated with increasing wages of those with high marginal propensities to spend (those with lower wages) versus leaving more money in the economy for the rich, who have higher propensities to save and will not inject that money into the economy. You have no defense of this from a macroeconomic perspective. Just admit that.
Besides, economists going back to the Physiocrats have said that giving money to the rich makes sense only if they inject the money back into the economy. Hoarding money was thought of as being the ultimate evil, which is why people like Ricardo and Mill were so critical of the rentier class. Mill said that the rentier class made money in their sleep, they would sit on their asses and rake in money form rent, and they didn’t inject that money back into the economy. Ricardo gave an argument in favor of free trade more than anything because he wanted to reduce rents on land, or unearned income. Adam Smith mentioned the “invisible hand” once in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, and it was a situation where a small group of people got control over the majority of land. He said that those people would act in the interests of society and those that had land taken from them or had access to land cut off would be just as well off because those that took control of the land would act altruistically and would support them. Naïve of course, but he needed to at least make that argument to address inequitable ownership and power, which he did elsewhere.