You are certainly free to reject any or all of it, but to insist that it is incorrect is wrong of you. You didn't read very carefully, that's for sure. You still insist government is involved, but it is not. There simply is no redistribution in the normal sense of the word: taking from some to give to others. The distribution of incomes/wealth in the future would certainly be affected, but all economic changes affect future distributions of income/wealth. Change is inevitable; no one can claim to be entitled to any particular outcome in the future--though in democracies people are free to work for any future they desire (so long as it is not to subvert democracy itself). As I said, dips in prices of stocks are only temporary glitches unless a corporation goes out of business; over time the stock market goes up. The larger point is that it would be better for the economy to get money that is circulating endlessly in the secondary market for stocks into (gradually) the 'real economy', the production of actual goods and services. Most importantly, it would be better for democracy by making society itself more democratic--without socialism.