I prefer the term "The Americas" anyways, since there's 2 of them.

Can you provide a source for the bolded? I'm pretty sure the money this 1% gains is from higher productivity, not some redistribution strategy. if anything, with progressive taxation, redistribution occurs conversely to what you've posited. 

By this logic, should we revert to tribalism and hunter-gatherer life-styles? I'm pretty sure NightDragon's point wasn't that sharing common resources hasn't existed, but as an alternative wealth-inequality and capitalism exist, just as naturally as the first. Anybody literate in economics would know that with a flat, centralized, redistribution of resources productivity would not only fail to pick up, there would be no reason to (hence tribal lifestyles.) 

As for the bolded, I do wish to see biological, psychological, sociological, or economic data which substantiates your statement, otherwise it's just a conjecture.

As for the underlined, how in the world do you know this? Have you spoken with them? 

As for italics, please cite the biological source that the need for equality is a genetic feature found in all human beings, otherwise, stop making unsubstantiated claims as if they were facts. 

People need to stop and think what kind of society they want. This - "the winner gets everything" kind of mentality will always lead to massive disparities in wealth. Of course there's people that live of benefits because they don't want to work, but you can't put everyone in the same bag. We should address all the causes of the problem, and not just one or the other.

Vlad the Impaler solved the issue of people who could not or would not work. He locked them in a building and lit it on fire. You might say the welfare program in medieval Transylvania went up in flames.

Not abvocating this, but poor people are not doing so bad in the US. A poor person in the US has luxuries that even many "well off" people in many countries have access to. Been to Iraq, and several african countries myself.

Aren't you awnsering your own question? It shouldn't be all or nothing, there should be a ballance in society and not the " rich people get everything", or "we need to go back to the jungle".

you probably get the same result for the wealth distribution of the whole world. now the question ist what to do against it? my answer: a basic need barrier which by law no one is allowed to fall below. it should provide people with just enough to live a normal life without any luxury. now the economys job would be to provide goods that people want, to make sure that hardly anyone is satisfyed with a basic need life.

I have the simple and easy solution for everyone. A Gene Roddenberry type of society in which you ebolish all monetary systems and have technology take care of every remedial task there is including food production.
It's just so simple.....

Oh yeah wait, there is this wonderful thing called relativity to which all facets of life bow down to. If we remove poverty from everyone as we see it today, there will still be poverty. We will just redefine poverty in contrast to the new levels. Wealth and poverty are very relative terms as described before. Wealth used to mean owning a kingdom and all inhabitants within. People were not people or citizens, they were subjects.

Poverty in the US once meant you literally could not put food on your own table no matter what you did. You simply could not exist except for the welfare of the local church. You owned nothing and likely had no shelter. Now poverty in the US means you don't have enough money to own many things or not enough income to consume as much, while being able to live a reasonable life through government assistance. You now are guaranteed food and shelter, things that once only a the wealth could guarantee. In this retrospect today's poor in the US live virtually wealthy in comparison.

There is no way to get rid of the poverty, there is no way to get rid of the wealthy. The income equality gap has nothing to with this at all. The way it is presented it is as if the rich are taking money from poverty making them more poverty stricken, which is not the case. Instead people in poverty are just becoming wealthier at much slower rate. Make no mistake as quality of life increasing for everyone in the US including the poor. The only thing that is changing is the income of the wealthiest is increasing faster than with the poor.

One way to think about it is societies income and quality of life is growing exponentially across the board. The lowest on the scale go up but 2^2 is only 4. While the rich, say are 100^2 is all the way up to 10,000. They are both improving just at different rates based upon their starting position. This does make the difference more and more vast as time goes on. This is, however, exactly how capitalism works. The major difference in income inequality is that despite the growing difference, anyone at anytime can jump from the bottom to the top or the top to the bottom. (another way of saying all boats rise during a rising tide)

I don't agree that the society we live in today is "rich people get everything" when in fact, in the last century, poverty rates have decreased from 80% of the world's population to 20% of the world's population. In basic economics one learns about Adam Smith and his conclusion that free-trade benefits all who take part in it, not because these people have a bigger omniscence of the economic reality, but because these people all work in their own self-interest and work with others from that perspective. 

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."

It was only through socialism, mercantilism, and corporatism that we were impoverished before free-trade and capitalism benefited all human beings, the rich, and the poor creating the so abhored (by socialists) bourgeoisie (middle class) in the process. 

This is more or less correct. It's called exponential growth, which basically means the more you've got the easier it is to make more. That, and in some places--the United States especially--it is entirely possible to make fortunes from nothing, especially with questionably ethical tricks like selling stocks short.

The real problem is the millions of people who don't know how to make a comfortable beginning with money and can't make the common sense decisions to keep it once they've got it. In so many words, the culture of poverty. The combination of having nothing and knowing how to make nothing is uniquely unfair.