I'm hard pressed to come up with a justified "No" to answer that question.
Let's hear some specifics. Name one specific thing someone at this level of income might do that extra income that meaningfully impacts their life. Your inability or refusal to do so so far seems to support my point here.
Here's my concrete example: if we added +13% to Jeff Bezos's accounts, do you really think that would change his life even a tiny bit? Would it change meaningfully even if we subtracted 13%? I'm just gonna say that's a no either way.
Which one can feel on way or the other about, but it's disingenuous to claim that's nothing. It's not nothing.
So make the full claim you want ("I support laws that tax the rich and decrease their freedom, so that poorer people can have a stronger social safety net and more freedom."), being honest about all sides, instead of the edited version ("I support laws that increase freedom for everyone {because money doesn't have value to rich people}.").
And recognize that if it's moral umbrage you're taking, the same reasoning extends down the income scale. (Making the assumption that you're not making minimum wage, and I'm not) Presumably someone who is making minimum wage would believe many of the things we do with our additional income, but would not do without it, are "not meaningful."
But that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about the government taking an asset (the 13%) from an individual.
It's hard to bill that as a zero-impact action with regards to freedom.
One might say "I think net freedom is increased by redistributing money from the extraordinarily wealthy to the broader population." But it seems illogical to say "We can create more freedom by taxing the wealthy, because that creates more freedom for everyone not wealthy, and has no impact on the wealthy."