"Equal proportional theft may have a disproportionate effect on quality of life."
Here, you basically admitted that inflation harms the poor more.
"However you have to look at where the stolen wealth is going, and in many cases the printed money is loaned to the government, to poverty alleviation credit programs, and sometimes to state proxy corporations."
"In many cases"
Since printed money causes inflation that harms the poor, printed money would have to be fully given to the poor if it is to actually help them.
But here is the flaw of printed money.
Giving printed money to people means people will spend it, hence not have it anymore. Its a short term help, however, every such "short term help" causes permanent inflation.
"Printing money and loaning that money to some poor person to buy a house"
"is no different from a proportional tax on every dollar holder and giving the money to the poor person."
Proportional tax increases prices just once. Printing money increases prices permanently. Printing it again increases prices even more. Continued printing increases prices constantly, hence causing constant inflation. Same is not true with tax.
"The reason it harms the poor (and everyone else) is because somebody actually had to build and maintain that house"
The poor would be better off if an ordinary house was built for them.
Economy is about production and distribution. If more products are distributed to the rich, less will be distributed to the workers.
"and now they did it for someone who didn't provide an equal or greater value in trade."
The rich provide no value to society. So building houses for the rich just means that houses for the ordinary people will be more expensive.
"Less production = less production / person"
The production of society is limited. The more it is focused to produce for the rich, the less there will be for the ordinary people.
"Of course it does, the economy is trading. "
The economy is production and distribution.
" A society that taxes the rich until the poor aren't poor any more"
Will secure existence, jobs and better life for the poor?
"is sending the artificial signal to the market "Don't produce more than others","
Actually, not even remotely true. When your wealth is taxed, you literally have to produce more of it. Or else you wont have it anymore.
I am not saying that we should take 90% of the wealth of the rich.
However, unless you want constant inflation, you need 1 trillion more in your budget every year.
"then production slows down, then when the poor run out of the redistributed pieces of paper they're still poor but now there are no jobs and even if they find a job it doesn't pay enough to live."
That has nothing to do with paying off the debt.
And its not true. For example, giving 200$ to the poor person per month is not gonna slow down production in any way. Otherwise, every time the rich donate to charity, the production would drop. If the poor dont have a job, giving them 200$ cant possibly change that to negative. If they do have a job, it will help them and wont cause them to quit their jobs.
"This is true in theory (sound economic theory unpolluted by Keynes) and true in practice (dozens of major examples over the past 120 years and beyond)."
If by major examples, you mean some isolated cases you found and taken out of context and misunderstood, then yes.
However, so far I havent seen any example of wealth being redistributed to help the poor actually having the opposite effect of helping.
"the rich are rich because they helped someone already; and statistically speaking they probably helped a lot of poor people already."
No, the rich are rich because they use ownership of a capital to produce more capital.
Workers make everything in society. So the workers help everyone. But the workers are not rich.
Statistically speaking, the rich are more likely to use their money to buy expensive things. This focuses the production in society to produce expensive things, hence decreasing the production of things distributed to ordinary people.
"They don't need to give back, they need to be given back; that's what the accumulation of currency means."
So the rich have produced everything and workers did nothing? In that case, why are workers necessary for production more than the rich people are?
