Regarding your last sentence, have you ever stopped to consider how we came to produce so much?
Keep up the 'redistribution' and see what happens.
keep up the initial "distribution", and see what happens.
one cannot have an honest discussion on "redistribution", without a parallel discussion on "distribution".
and lets look at the economics of things post the original "distribution".
say XYZ company nets $1 bil for the yr.
the owner who decides who gets what keeps $600 million for himself, and the other $400 mil gets split $40,000 each for the 10,000 employees.
since your subject regarding "redistribution" is about "fairness, we could also argue the fairness of the original distribution.
does having the power to decide the original distribution, by default, equate to said distribution being "fair"?
one could argue both sides of that, but there is a much bigger dynamic to this.
being the owner already owns his house and cars already, and the company picks up all his health insurance, nearly all the $600 mil he took gets either put into the financial markets or used to purchase investment real estate.
this drives up the price of stocks and bonds, and of real estate.
what it doesn't do, is get circulated in the regular economy anymore.
so you just removed $600 mil from the regular economy. (but in reality many many times that).
meanwhile that $40,000 per employee is $400 mil that gets circulated over and over and over to the plumber and pizza places and bowling alleys and landscapers and auto dealers and merchants etc and generates billions and billions into the regular economy, whereas the $600 mil the owner kept generates virtually zip for the regular economy.
had said owner kept even just $200 mil for himself, then the employees would have gotten $80,000 each instead of $40,000 each, and most of the added $40,000 would also have circulated many times in the regular economy for billions and billions more to the regular economy..
with this scenario being cycled over and over, the regular economy is constantly being drained, while the market economy is constantly being inflated at the expense of the regular economy.
regardless of the "fairness" of that, it's long term effect on the economy isn't debatable, but rather inevitable.
therefore, while the "fairness" of the original "distribution" will always be open for debate on what's fair vs what's legal or what's deserved", what isn't up for debate is the down line effect on the regular economy, which will eventually translate to all of the economy sooner or later.
and the real "redistribution" going on here becomes a spiraling redistribution of the nation's money supply from the regular economy which touches everyone, to the market economy that only effectively touches the rich, with a corresponding spiraling of the division of wealth..
and as Margaret Thacher no doubt wishes she had said, eventually the rich will run out of regular economy money, as money only flows up, it NEVER flows or even trickles down, without a gun to the head of the rich, held by either the govt or the anarchist.
held by the govt, works out better even for the rich.