if you are saying that we should discover a way of equally distributing all the wealth among all people, no matter what, I disagree. From the economic point of view such a system would be bad for humanity because there would be no incentive to work.
it definitely should not be "no matter what". history shows that expropriation and equal redistribution is (as i mentioned before) a dead end. good example is soviet union. the evolution of human society chewed it up. as you said there were "no incentive to work", there were no point to do your job better if you get practically the same as your less enthusiastic colleague.
the exemptions were "stahanovets" (people who do several day norms of production for one worker in one day). it is interesting that the motivation for this hard work was not of economical nature, but rather ideological. ~
I read that quite often the producing of much more than was required by by Stakhanovites was actually the product of overreporting( false accounting): what several workers did was credited to just one person. Everything was a lie in the Soviet Union, even the Stakhanovite movement was a fraud.
the world economy would collapse, and there would be no funds for developing vaccines, for example. So, imo, all people would suffer from such system, the rich and the poor.
~
so (being realistic) it has to be something in the middle, something that make the middle class dominating in the society.
if the middle class makes even 80 percent of the whole world population it can be said there is peace and harmony on Earth.~
I agree with this. Not sure about the "peace and harmony on Earth", but from the economical point of view, that would be great.