A salient difference between existential and incidental reverse wealth transfers appears to be (a) the existential pain the rulers, as a whole, defer by enacting them and (b) their intent. Consider the 2008 bailouts [1]. The masses helped, in part, pay the salaries of well-compensated professionals [2]. But could Washington, D.C. have let the banks fail? Probably. Were politicians primarily concerned with the bank executives rebelling? Or were the masses interests' in mind? I think it's safe to say the latter was the intent behind the bailouts, even if a good amount of the former happened along the way

Another example is the scientific and military grant-making processes. Such grants may fund labs and companies with wealthy owners and managers. But that isn't the intent behind the grants. Furthermore, politicians--as a group--don't existentially fear the defense contractors or contract-lab operators.

Now consider Venezuela. Babies are starving [3]. Yet bondholders get paid. Why is the government more afraid of its bondholders than citizens? If it's because the government fears the bondholders' reactions, e.g. military insurrection, more than popular revolt then it's a desperate maneuver.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bank_Bailout

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilizati...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/world/americas/dying-infa...