Banks and stock traders do not honestly earn their wealth with their blatant ripping off of their customers. Banks and stock traders add no tangible value to the economy besides running their businesses like a casino. Privately owned international Reserve Banks use Fiat capital and print unlimited money out of thin air. Banking and stock brokers are scammers and they are always bailed out by the tax payers when they are They are not called too big too fail when they are really big: tax payers save the wealthy bankers/traders every time they blow all the money away. 

You know, when you gf gamble and you tell her, if she wins, she keeps, if she loses, you pay?

Bankers are like those gf's.

Sounds like you should move to America or a country with lower taxes :-p

The question is kind of moot. Does a system exist where those that do not have wealth are free to work for it? If not, then its a very bad thing for wealth being in the hands of the few (examples: African despots).

If everyone is free to become wealthy by working hard, saving smart, and spending thrifty, then wealth shouldn't be spread around. Far be it from me to take from those that work hard and are rewarded for it, to give it to those that do not deserve it.

Ultimately, a perfect society would have those that are billionares and the uber-wealthy give their monies away via charities to help those in need. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are perfect examples. If every rich person were like them, we'd have no welfare system in the US, as those that really need help, would be taken care of. And there'd be more money to help everyone due to less taxation via welfare.

It sounds like you've never used a bank before...

Banks exist to *gasp* redistribute capital! They allow people to have a secure way to invest their money. They earn their clients money through loans. People that have money give it to people that need money. Why did we have the major bank issues in 2007-2008? Because banks were helping too many poor and minorities get houses!

Its amazing people lobby so much against banks when they do a lot of good for society. Obviously, if they take advantage of people via taxpayer money (too big to fail argument), there is a problem. However, most banks are great institutions which are critical for the development of modern societies.

Corporate bailouts are more or less nationalism. The banks should be left to fail and collapse. The rich bankers should pay their own debts- not tax payers.Who cares much that workers are out of work? These corporates have $50 million salaries plus bonuses for losing money. Tax payers money being wasted on bonuses and salaries that is waste. Let them fail and let the tycoons go and ruin another business due to their incompetence and mismanagement. 

US is now in a jobless economic recovery. It must pay back its debts with higher taxes on the middle class and workers and lower company taxes. Companies board of directors are family owned business in Corporate America. Nepotism of aristocratic bloodlines dating back to the 18th century control the International Banks and big companies in America and around the world.. 

Actually agree with you on something. GM should of failed also, or found its own funding.

China should have bought GM for a discounted price. Most of the car factories are now in China anyway: made at the lowest cost to maximise revenues and well open global trade borders. The American government does not and should not have to bail out big businesses. Tax payers money can be spent on better things than bailing out failing corporations. 

The trouble is that, at least in the UK, they're not.

State schools are, of course, paid for by the government. Somebody with a lower income will be far less likely to send their child to a private school, because they simply cannot afford it. Somebody with a high income may still send their child to state school, but this would naturally become less common the higher up the income ladder you travel.

And then, the NHS. The fact that it somehow manages to spend £70 billion every year and get precisely nothing done, ignores several serious conditions and often puts you on year-long waiting lists means that, again, the wealthy usually opt for private insurance. Those who earn less will probably not take private insurance, because it is an expense they cannot afford.

So, actually, the government gets more tax from people who take less advantage of the system.

I am a believer in progressive taxation, but I think it's ridiculous that the government is planning to raise the no-tax threshold to £10,000 without considering the fact that the starting rate is probably higher than in any other country in the world, and the higher rate is a ridiculous 40%, and begins at £40,000.

In the absence of a state police force, it would be people like you forking out for private security. You could just say its the cost of living in a civilized society. Besides, with relatively more affluence you'd have the most to lose if it all fell apart. You therefore have the most incentive to maintain it.

 I will need to edit the original post with this, and what I am asking about.

I was asking if it is better to have a system where those with money, and weath get the lion's share of benefits from economic production, while the middle class and lower tread water or lose ground, or if productivity gains end up spreading out more evenly.  The current trends involving the United States is that the middle class, since the late 1970s has seen their wages stagnant or decrease (adjusted for inflation), while those who have money, and the rich, have had their incomes and wealth greatly increase.  People have borrowed to keep up with the Jones in this, and worked more hours. So, say these trends continue where the top end up with an ever increasing percentage of wealth and income, while the middle class disappears, and you have increasing numbers of people falling further behind.  In this case, is this system superior to one where there is a middle class that gets also benefits from gains in productivity, and increased profits.  Or if the natural order of things is to have only rich or poor, if that is superior.

In this, the responses I see that fit to discuss are:
* Denying this is happening, and showing there is a middle class and wealth distribution isn't a problem, as the middle class is keeping it up.

* Argue this is wrong, and needs to be tackled.

* Argue that this is the natural order of things, and the best system is one in which either you get rich or remain poor, because everything is dependent on the individual, and those who are competent always rise to the top, and this shouldn't be tampered with.