What is wrong with this picture?

DON'T KNOW who Egbert Willies is, but find this single statement thought provoking.

"...If 1 billion dollars is earned by 50,000 everyday people instead of a single, super-wealthy plutocrat, then those 50,000 people will generate a LOT more economic activity because they will spend most of that billion dollars right away." —Egberto Willies

MY THOUGHT: Not only would there be more economic activity, it seems to me there would be more taxes paid. Wouldn't all of that make a difference in the economy and in balancing the national budget? If that is so, then why do so many of the representatives of the 'everyday people' argue for the protection of the 'single super-wealthy plutocrat' anyway?

If 50,000 people would have to pay taxes on the money they earned (the 1 billion dollars in this scenario) why doesn't the plutocrat have to pay the same taxes on the 1 billion he or she earns? What is not right about this picture? Is this a puzzle we could ask the children on Sesame Street to figure out for us?

P.S. Trust me, I will research Mr. Willies and see if I find the rest of his work as thought provoking as this single statement. And I will look for a complete definition of 'plutocrat' and not just settle for the contextual meaning I have given it.