What is wrong is the conclusion - well three conclusions:
1. That we need to take stuff from people because government can spend it better (not on genuine public needs, e.g. infrastructure, education or defense), but social welfare redistribution.
And, 2. We end up taking stuff, not from those who profited most, e.g. those with substantial capital assets - because capital assets are sheltered - but from the middle class because tax brackets must be adjusted downwards and rates upwards to collect the funds to be redistributed,
And, 3. Redistribution is not just to the genuinely needy, but to welfare queens, and even worse, crony capitalists.
And this is because of the false premise that redistribution is moral and can be done morally when the decision about how to redistribute someone else's money is thoroughly political and has lead to the present level of government corruption.
Totally agree.
The attempt at sleight of hand is typical democrat.
As you point out, there are some societal activities generally accepted as necessary (or preferable) that are communal in nature.
Like building the interstate road system or supporting the military, fire departments and law enforcement.
But Elizabeth Warren and other socialists intentionally conflate the necessary and the unnecessary in a transparent attempt to justify pursuit of their leftist agendas.
They use examples of activities where social cooperation is accepted as necessary to justify their preference to expand socialism to areas and activities where it is not necessary.