I did my bachelors in economics, and one of our textbooks taught that all other things being equal (ceteris paribus), more wealth equalisation (taking from the richer and giving to the poorer) means less wealth creation in the long term. Why? Wealth will naturally concentrate in the hands of those more capable of creating it: if Jo is making 2% per annum return and Jane is making 4% per annum return, and they both start with the same amount, then Jane's share of the total wealth pool will continuously increase relative to Jo. The key thing to note is that as Jane's producing twice as much from her wealth as Jo, if we take resources from Jane to give to Jo then they'll be used less effectively, slowing overall growth.

To illustrate, imagine they both start with $1000 each. The total wealth pool is hence $2000, and they both have 50% each, perfect equality. Now, let's look 50 years in the future, assuming the previously mentioned interest rates per annum compounding annually. According tohttp://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calcu..., Jo will have $2,691.59 and Jane will have $7,106.68. The total wealth pool is $9,798.27. Jo hence now has 27.47%, and Jane has 72.53%. They're both less equal, but they're also both wealthier, and the overall wealth pool has increased.

Now, let's look ahead another 50 years. If no wealth transfer occurs, Jane will have $50,504.92 and Jo will have $7,244.65, with the total wealth pool being $57,749.57. If we equalise wealth, however, such that both have $4,899.13, then in 50 years Jane will have $34,816.57 and Jo will have $13,186.44, for a total wealth pool of $48,003.01. This is 83.12% of the total wealth pool that there would be if no wealth transfer took place. This effect is applies similarly if wealth redistribution happens every year through redistribution of income.

In this sense there is hence a direct tradeoff between economic growth and wealth transfers from richer to poorer in the long term (all other things being equal).