on the one extreeme, if all wealth was distributed equally there would be no one to make the needed large investments (roads, skyscrapers, manufacturing equipment).

on the other extreeme, if all wealth was in the hands of a few there would be no one to buy any products.

like in most things in life, the answer is in the middle ground.  we need the rich and the poor.  the role of the government is to make sure both sides of the coin are treated fairly. 

Wait a minute, could you please explain how the wealthy benefit more from government services?

As far as I see it the wealthy drive the same roads, have the same police/fire departments, (in Canada at least) have the same access to health care, etc. So where exactly do the wealthy get the extra services?

In fact we get less as I've seen. My grandpa worked hard his entire life and owned his own small business that he passed down to my dad. He payed into the Canada pension plan every year as well. And when he retired guess what? He wasn't eligible to recieve his well deserved pension because he made too much money through his life that he didn't "need" it. So basically my grandpa got robbed of his pension but if he had made LESS money through his career he would have gotten it.

My point is the wealthy pay way more in taxes and get screwed over on things like pensions and we get no more services to show for it.

It depends on what you call 'wealthy'. Are you talking about the top 1% whom regularly pull in 1M or more a year or the wider fraction whom are on 100k or more?

You also have to remember the wealthy benefit from the government by:

• Intellectual property laws.
• Regulation (which makes it difficut to enter the market thus reduces competition)
• Trademarks etc which restrain competion.
• Police forces which protect their wealth as they have things which are worth stealing.
• Education/Health makes their workers a lot more productive.
• Welfare which prevents desperate and starving people resort to crime.
• Overall financial stability, I.E. They recognise the land ownership and the prevent wealth destroying inflation.
• Enforcement of contracts and other obligations, financial and otherwise.
• Construction of infrastructure etc.

Sure everyone would be poorer without the above, but the more financial resources one has, the more they would lose without it. Im sure I forgot a few things.

I don't exactly know what you do so how can I say?

Yea , they should spread it all around. Although , some people do have to much money. Here in Holland , taxes are very high. But we get high rewards. Our economic is very good , our roads are well maintained and the whole country is clean , crime rate is low , education is high , good care for the not-so-rich (they get enough money to rent a house , and buy enough food) , overall the people are rich compared to other country's , and the health care is one of the best in the world. So i'm not completely against taxes. 

Also , the more money you earn ,the more money you have to pay on taxes. When you earn around around a 1 million dollar a year , you have to pay almost half to taxes. Still , some very successful people manage to earn millions here. 

So the economic spread here is fine for me and most people. 

That system sounds a lot better than UK and US: two countries that have the international and financial head quarters and well those countries have corrupt incompetent governments. Crime rates in the US and UK are going up and up in a jobless economic recovery. Does not help your nation by shipping most of your workforce to cheap labour markets. UK and US are drowning in national and foreign debt and the currency exchange rates over there are very bad. 

it is better to accumulate wealth in the hands of those that earned it.

It seems to me that most Americans believe we don't need wealth distribution because they don't understand the huge divergence in wealth distribution.  An economist and a psychologist did a study together on income distribution and how we percieve the division of wealth.  Most Americans believed we lived with the income distribution of Sweden and considered the current US distribution of wealth to be the worst case scenario (they weren't told which was which before answering.)  I think that the more people realized that we live in a  plutocratic-peasant society where you're either super rich or poor the less they'll resist taxing the rich because as we can see, when the rich have their money they could care less about whether the rest of us have enough to survive.

http://www.slate.com/id/2268872/

Its great if you are in the few. Not so great if you're in the many.

Market deregulation and free the markets up. Too many rules and regulation that do not encourage competition. Patents inhibit free market. Black market enterprises should be allowed by the law. Free up the market and make everything and anything allowable to make a profit. 

Health and Education should only be available to those who can afford it. Public education and public health is waste of tax payers money.

All public infrastructure owned by the Government should be sold off as cash in the bank to private owners. Privatise everything. 

Large police force and large military to keep citizens in line and implement Martial law is where taxes should be spent. 

Legal representation should only be available to those who can afford. People who can not afford it, too bad. Just rot in jail. 

Human rights: well China is the way a capitalist free market economy should be run and that is the way the future of the world will end up.