I've thought about this one before. First, in terms of ends, it's not better, but you can say it is more virtuous, in the sacrificial sense of putting the need

I've thought about this one before. First, in terms of ends, it's not better, but you can say it is more virtuous, in the sacrificial sense of putting the needs of others before hers, even though probably pointless in practice. Thus, in terms of practicality, I do think it's better for the poor to keep their money, and the rich to redistribute their surplus. But, in this practical sense, I feel it would be even more efficient if our society could improve its systems so that the surplus simply never happened in the first place. What would be both virtuous and better in practice in my opinion is if Bill Gates simply had chosen to give himself a smaller share and a lower wage from the beginning. Now, maybe if you take into account psychology and motivations, it might be that humans require our current system of winning it all and then giving it back. So its hard to say if it could be implemented at all.