It’s this simple:
Are you willing to make someone(s) worse off financially (e.g. taxing a billionaire) to make someone(s) else better off (e.g. funding Meals on Wheels)?
If no, you’re against redistribution. Clear as day.
But if you’re willing to make someone(s) worse off to make someone(s) better off, then you’re not against redistribution at least in theory, if not in practice. It means you have no principled stand against redistribution.
It just becomes a matter of degree.