Ho! He is right.<p>Just the problem of redistribution is like a problem of multiple bath tubs pouring water in a bigger common bathtub (the wealth) and how it is recycled (the water flowing back to the top in no respect of any scientific analogy).<p>you could globally be happy that for all the bathtubs of the world to observe a ratio of wealth repartition that is less extreme.<p>but where does this wealth/water comes from?<p>the rich who are already experiencing a favorable bias toward tax paying or the active workers who are paying relatively more taxs comparing to their income?<p>Tax does not transform into wealth maybe?<p>No, but education does: a worker with an easier access to the education worths more for the economy. Health insurance makes a worker available in good conditions for more productive years. (No wonders that health insurance are almost forced for highly paid workers; the company should ensure its working forces are productive).<p>So if the richer don't pay as much taxes, taxes being more profitable for the richer it is de facto (just by the sheer disappearance of the resources indirectly provided by the states) a logical decrease of the «second order» resources.<p>Yes in the world globally situation increases positively in terms of repartition, but locally because mostly we have the same incentive all around the world, the situation decreases.<p>The inequality are globally more balanced, but locally tending towards more non linear repartition. With a nice sigmoid.<p>this will go on as long as there is no fiscal equity amongst all citizens, whatever the country, whatever the religion, or social/political/economical belief.<p>It all boils down to how retro action works. And the shape of the curves of taxes. Every single steps, every non linear progression you make, you introduce distinct clusters of citizens which interests will diverge with the rest.<p>Put a sigmoid in the way people pay taxes/get credit refound, and your society will have a sigmoid in its structure, thus creating the probability of some divergence of opinions on what is equity or egality.<p>Are the 2 extremum wishable? All persons living at the average, or a cast system with n distincts layers, or can their exists «harmonious» level of wealth in a society that could results in less frictions?<p>Mathematically I am pretty sure we could agree that when a curve have 2 extremum that are not optimums (casts system or uniform normative systems) we should find the rules for an optimum in the middle.<p>Now in real life, maybe it is time to see the inequality not as a philosophical problem, but rather as process that can be engineered for the greater good of every one: slackers, billionnaires, hobos, politicians all alike.<p>The first step at my opinion would be to forbid any rules in the form IF DISCRETE cond A then apply X else apply Y
in laws and tax formulation.