On the contrary: experiments show that even in a completely merit-less, artificial environment, we still get a power-law distribution of wealth (there is just n

On the contrary: experiments show that even in a completely merit-less, artificial environment, we still get a power-law distribution of wealth (there is just no specific agent who'll be the one ultra-wealthy one). More relevantly, you can manipulate this model in various ways to create either a less exponential curve with no completely poor agents, or undifferentiated equalness. You can code in things like income tax and so on. The single most effective way to make the curve (on completely meritless income, remember) cease to impoverish anyone without cause, is to apply an incredibly tiny WEALTH tax. Then it takes care of itself, and you can jack up your 'income' all you want, and hey if you spend it all then you don't pay wealth tax! It requires about three percent each cycle. Not 50%, not 95%: 3%. This is in the total absence of effort, merit, or indeed quality of labor or thought. If you would like more income and you're a special snowflake, by all means work harder and smarter and have more income. If you spend it, you'll have a lot of fun, and if you hoard it, it will eventually dwindle, but you'll be in a society where you can easily make more.