(Adding to your comment) This is one of the paradoxes of depressions and downturns, as well as an important economic factor for preventing the rich from becoming "too" rich (ill-defined term). Capitalism highly depends on the flow of money. Even a completely neutral business (for every dollar it takes in it spends: buying products, salaries, taxes, etc) is a benefit to the economic society. In this manner, during depression you actually want to stimulate spending, because what's happened is that a depression is a significant slowdown in that flow, among other things. The value is in the transactional nature of capital, not the capital/cash/goods itself. This is why we have inflation, on purpose, because it encourages people to spend now rather than later (where your dollars will be worth less). The super rich being super rich is problematic not because they have lots of money, it is because they are unable to spend that money and so essentially they are removing that capital from the economic river (per say). The irony of this is that by doing so they themselves also suffer (just not as much) because of reduced public goods (infrastructure, health, environment, etc) as well as reduced innovation and development. You want all the capital in the game to make the system more efficient (in fact, there's even multiplier tricks that banks do). We have a system of mercantilism/commercialism: the system benefits from trading.

When it comes to talking about the wealthy I like to frame the problem a bit differently. Instead of focusing on the ceiling, it is better to focus on the floor. I don't care if there is an unbounded ceiling (that would be preferable if possible) but I do care about a bounded floor. There are many ethical reasons to care about the poor, but understanding capitalist economics as a river flowing, poor people are also sinks (like the rich). They too are not able to effectively spend money, or even generate capital in the first place (remember, this is a positive sum game where the point is to generate more capital[0] year over year). We don't actually want poor people, and we don't actually want less people. So the best solution is to make these people not poor. I don't know if the answer is through UBI or actually addressing the complex issues within our society that prevent people from climbing economic ladders[1]. Unless you believe that poor people are genetically different (no evidence) or that they're "too far gone" (extremely weak evidence and doesn't argue against fixing the new generation), then it makes sense to help these people out. After all, the government's role in economics (it is a player) is to prevent these types of pooling and to promote competition. It is really an extension of the ideas behind why we monopoly bust. Not because monopolies are always bad (sometimes they are good. Damn network effect), but because the power is abused in such a way that capital resources pool into a system that prevents the economic growth of the society as a whole.

The huge irony is that part about how helping the poor helps the rich. I'll put it this way: a king a few hundred years ago lived a worse life than many middle class people. They did not have plumbing or working toilets, as good of health care, could not travel around the world in hours, and honestly most probably did not have as good quality of food (new cooking techniques, accesses to new spices, access to goods throughout the year, overall variety, etc). These are not things you can directly "buy" but rather you have to let the chaotic nature of the system create these things. You kinda just got to throw money into the wishing well and wait for it to happen, but it happens faster when more people are not struggling economically. They can still be extravagantly wealthy while advancing this too. Let's be real, there's no way the top 50 richest people can spend their money in their lifetimes.[2] The truth is that going for the "highest score" is over-fitting to the metric and actually harms performance.

Weirdly the first part (depression paradox) of this point is made in a South Park episode: https://southpark.cc.com/episodes/9do3gw/south-park-margarit...

[0] Capital is a vague term. Using here vaguely to not just mean cash, but goods, innovation, research, etc. But do not confuse economics with a zero sum game (common). Most games are not zero sum except in very simplified cases or special cases (like an instantaneous snapshot).

[1] Nearly everything we oversimplify. The world is incredibly complex. First order solutions aren't good enough for this modern world. Stop using them. It isn't that they aren't "good enough" it is that in complex systems using a first order solution can actually take you away from the optimal solution, not just inefficiently towards it. If you think about it you'll be able to find some examples (best to do this thought experiment: think of a simple and reasonable solution to a problem that completely backfires. If you need help Google "Cobra Effect").

[2] It's important to remember that capital works differently for the rich. Since the capital is difficult to spend at a rate that greatly depreciates itself, the interest factor plays a dominating role. While you or I grow little interest on our money because our small principles, the rich have huge principles and even a small dividend on that is an absurd amount of money. E.g. if we had a billion dollars and got a 1% yearly return on it (for easy math) that's $10m/yr. It is definitely possible to spend that money in a year, but it is more difficult to spend that much every year.