> Some approach the issue from a Kantian perspective, and ask 'what right does A have to take B's money and give it to C?'[1] What right does someone have to r

> Some approach the issue from a Kantian perspective, and ask 'what right does A have to take B's money and give it to C?'[1] What right does someone have to reap the benefits of society and not give back? What right does someone have to accumulate wealth from a system based on hundreds of years of driving people from their land and means of existence (enclosure), violence (anti-labor/union action), political misgiving (anti-labor laws), collusion and still not contribute? Stratification to this extent wasn't possible without stripping people of their ability to bargain with capital for a share of profits from increased productivity. It wasn't possible without whittling the system down to the point where the wealthy pay a fraction of the taxes they did or could compared to other classes and to the point where raising their taxes is political suicide. > Others (of a more utilitarian leaning) wonder whether redistribution will 'kill the engine of prosperity'. The USA has overtaken Britain in per capita GDP by growing 1% (point) faster per year for 100 years, and many believe that redistribution reduces growth. Evidence for this? Countries with a strong social safety net sure don't seem have killed their engines of prosperity.