John Smallberries wrote:
Second, it is not a question of redistributing wealth. It is a question of whether the system to distribute wealth is fair and in the best interest of society as a whole.
No, it is NOT a question of fairness. Life is not fair, and every attempt to make it so is at a greater cost to people of ability than the benefit it provides to the weak. I DO think there should be provisions to help the chronically and terminally ill, the mentally disabled, the homeless. I also think that those provisions should be the realm of private charity, not forceful government intervention.
The problem with your redistributionist theory of "fairness" is that it is inherently UNFAIR, it just happens to be unfair to those closer to the top of the pyramid, who both constitute a smaller population and whom more people are more comfortable holding in contempt, most often due simply to envy. Unfortunately, those are the same people who for the most part drive economic growth, expansion, and the creation of wealth. There can be little benefit from restraining them. Redistribution provides incentives for laziness, not something we should ever value as a society.
Of course, this is all probably a waste, because you discredit yourself immediately with your contention that Bill Gates has not improved productivity. Say what you will about Microsoft, whether it's a monopoly, the quality of its products, etc., but the idea that we would be getting more done without them is patently absurd. Should we all just go back to pen and paper?
As for the person who mentioned the statistic about new IPOs from the WSJ, that's both interesting and alarming.