Would you rather live in North Korea or Switzerland?  They're the ultimate examples of weath accumulating in a few hands (North Korea) and wealth being spread around (Switzerland has the highest median income in the World).

Charity is a bad idea and is as bad as taxation. Foreign aid is another code for military funding. Instead of food and medical aid for the poor people in Africa, dictators get  funds from foreign aid to build armies to oppress their own people. Charity and taxation is funded primarily by the middle class who can least afford it.

Voting is a complete waste of time, the wealthy elites decide the government of the day in a  rigged casino democracy. Religion, faith and family means more than having lots of money. Education and health should not be forced upon anyone, socialised health care is a scam that is mainly funded by those who can least afford it and do not need it. Education is a waste of time for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Socialised education, socialised health care and compulsory aged pensions has bankrupted some nations or left them in loads of debt. All foreign, personal and public debt must be paid back plus interest.

And a lurker strikes from the dark ;)

I have been thinking on this quite a bit as well. I would actually lean to a situation where instead of trying to make one stable system, I believe it would be more beneficial to find a way of constantly switching wealth and where the wealth lies.

When wealth lies for too long in one of the economic groups it is their best interest which is served. Moving the wealth over a period of time does not stop this from happening but will create a situation where no group can eventually collapse the economic and political aspects of society into serving only their best interests.

Median incomes based on GDP means nothing. Switzerland is where all the criminal organisations channel and launder their secret fortunes in untraceable accounts. 

GDP is a poor measurement of economic activity. Wealthy few own almost everything, while the majority of the world live off  bread crumbs. Rubbery government figures are propaganda. 

Taxation and charity are two ways of theft from the middle class and  it ends up in the hands of the wealthy elites in one way or the other. Rockefellers (Big Oil) and Rothchilds(international Bank owners) do not hold most of the world's gold reserves in family vaults by being nice friendly rich people. 

Governments work for the billionaire elites who are illuminated and have the power and control over finance capitalism. Voting in a democratic process  is a complete waste of time. It makes no difference what government gets in one to start wars and the other to waste money on useless socialist nation building programs. Governments bankrupt nations by stealing from the middle class to fund wars and all the  useless socialist programs.

Lower taxes or no taxes on the middle class and workers. Education and health are a waste of time. Police and military: the elites can pay for their own- police and military should be privatised. Corporate bailouts should never be paid for by the middle class who pay for the mistakes of the wealthy finance bankers/traders. 

I don't think you necssisairly know what Median income means.

It's totally possible to have a high Median income yet a high gini coefficent.   Switzerland is actually a pretty decent example of this.

Which is the stat you are looking for.

Switzerland's Gini coefficent 33.7%.   North Korea's?   31%.

The "wealth" is actually spread around more evenly in North Korea then Switzerland.

Using your own logic, you've disproven your own point. 

Though regardless, the real answer is pretty simple.  Whatever grows the economy best at the time, is best... because as long as you have basic controls at hand, everybodies lives will be better.

If you live in a shitty economy where there is no growth... it's not going to matter how the wealth is spread... cause it ain't gonna last.

It depends on ones perspective.

Socialism / Capitalism are not diametrically opposed ideas. We know that unrestrained socialism would never work and we know that unrestrained capitalism doesn't work either. Both have been tried.

Anyway the real question seems to be one of taxation. Do you support a progressive tax system? That seems to be the bulk of what is really being discussed because that is the primary method in recent times of spreading the wealth around. I support progressive taxation because those whom are taxed more heavily are the ones whom benefit disproportionately more from the government and its services.

Awesome! Totally summed it up.

This. /Thread

the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor....a system like that will only sustain itself for so long.