So far as the economy is concerned the important thing is to ensure that the money is spent in a way that helps ensure that that the economy revives.

That could be achieved in a number of ways - one is that the government could take it, and pay it out directly, or it could achieve the same result through adjusting taxes. Or it could be done by people with money acting in ways that had the effect of distributing the money, maybe through philanthropy, maybe be by conducting their business in a different way.

And there could be other ways of achieving a similar result.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't important differences between all those methods. There are, and some are preferable to others. But in all cases the outcome would be that the money was be spread out, with the consequence that it would be more usefully applied.

In a way this is analogous to the assumption that society is best served by having power distributed rather than concentrated. That was considered to be a totally unacceptable idea until reletively recently.