Individualism and nuclear families prevent people from achieving economies of scale in housing, child rearing and consumption; and so they remain dependent on a continuous flow of income (poor).
The more money one has, the easier it becomes to accumulate even more. The poor can barely keep hold of the little they have, so easily it slips through their fingers. Unchecked, wealth gravitates into ever fewer and larger piles. There must be some way to reverse this trend.
What if we were only taxed on the proportion of society’s wealth to which we laid claim? What if we forfeited all rights to whatever we refused to declare?
(In a country where the government spent 6 trillion and the top 1% of a population of 300 million owned 50% of the nation’s money and property, those 3 million would pay on average 1,000,000 in taxes, the other 99% would pay approximately 10,000 each, some more and many almost nothing, of course.)
Perhaps the cause of most economic inequality is that the wealthier, less needy of two trading partners seems to always make out a bit better. Or is it the smarter, wilier of the two? Would this not over time result in some accumulating exponentially more wealth than most others? The direst need must always concede — and so the differential value of every transaction naturally trickles up.