The other day we found this list being shared on Tumblr. We have 5 quick responses.
1 This assumes that the wealthy have earned their wealth, rather than taken it by exploiting the poor, as tends to happen in a capitalist system. (For example, by paying a disproportionately high percentage of corporate money to executives, rather than to the workers who make the product.)
2 This could be used as an argument against paying dividends to shareholders and investors, and giving that money instead to the low-level workers.
3 The government can nurture future wealth, which the markets are very bad at doing. To give an extreme example, as an unpublished writer, JK Rowling was given an £8,000 grant by the Scottish Arts Council to allow her to be able to afford to finish writing the first Harry Potter novel. In a pure free-market system, Harry Potter – and all the cultural and economic benefits it created – would probably not exist.
4 Giving everyone enough money to pay for their necessities stimulates local economies, whereas a lot of that money would sit, unused, in a millionaire’s bank account. Dividing wealth makes it work harder.
5 This assumes that the only value people have is as workers. In a capitalist economy, people also have economic value as customers – giving people money to encourage work to be done in local communities.