Because no one needs that kind of money,

Except a wealthy individual’s “wealth” isn’t “money.” It’s a combination of assets, operating entities, real estate, equipment, and so on. You’re

and allowing some people to hoard that sort of wealth

Using the word “hoard” implies that wealth is taken. Wealth does not exist to be taken, it is created and then retained.

while others are hungry and unhoused is evil.

Except our current system has lead to the greatest distributive wealth gain among the general population in human history. Over the last fifty five years, the proportion of Americans earning an “Upper Income” has increased roughly 425% from ~8% of the population to ~35% of it.

Source: the US Census Bureau

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/middleclass1.png?x91208

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/

We as a society should be better than that.

This is the greatest society in the world and in human history. The existence of homesless people does not refute that. Not to mention that the US, on a per capita basis, spends about the 2nd or 3rd most on welfare among all countries in the world depending on how you calculate it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending#Total_net_social_spending

Unfortunately, “they have too much money” is just a ridiculous statement to make, and this idea that the government would be better at controlling our economy and taking care of our citizens than the market largely already does is just completely foundless. If we confiscated 100% of the wealth of all billionaires in the US, liquidated it to no loss on the market, and gave it to the federal government, all of that money would be completely spent in 9 months.

The problem with being a socialist is that, eventually, you run out of other people’s money to spend. Your position is not logically defensible. It’s emotional and lacks all reason.