A party had asserted economic growth was unfairly distributed in this country. He cited a newspaper article here: (Piketty 2017)
A response follows:
Government is a monopoly on force. That's what it is.
If we accept that it is, then the next question is how much is permissible and under what circumstances? To secure a raise? Hmm ... sounds slippery.
I have no knowledge of Hobbes. I do understand that if I refuse to pay income tax, someone will probably try to deprive me of my freedom for being so crazy as to think I should retain the earnings from my labors. Another issue I see is the term ... earned. It seems altogether relative and arbitrary. I also think it is easy to demonize people such as the so-called 1% saying they don't earn it, just as it is easy for others to say poor people don't work. Fair share is equally troubling. It sounds good, but the details sound devilish.
I think people getting to retain their labors and capital, is fair though. I think you should get to keep your check - all of it.
Ill-gotten is troubling also. Has a crime been committed such as fraud? If so, then that's a different issue. Do tell about these frauds that are not making it into our court system? I have not earned my pay from ill means, yet the government sees fit to encourage my employer take a good chunk from my check every month and encourages me to allow it under various forms of threats.
I would disagree on the point that our constitution permits a welfare state. Would you like to help me understand how you arrived at that conclusion? If you are referring to an individual state's constitution, that is another matter, but I presume you are referring to the federal. Being aware of Hobbes and Locke, you surely aren't reading the general welfare clause to mean specific welfare?
The question becomes -- fair share of what exactly? Land, Labor, Capital? What some group on some committee get together and decide is ... unearned? To what exactly do you feel you or the proxy recipients of your 'generosity' are owed? What is a fair share? Most importantly, are you willing to live by the same rules you would impose on others, even sending men with guns out to enforce the rules? I think access or compensation for the land is easy to argue, but beyond that I'm having a hard time seeing it.
As an aside, you may be interested in this paper which theorizes that: "modern information technology (in short IT) is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970's and has contributed to slow growth of wages and decline in the natural rate."