Like everything else on this site, a work in progress.
A party had asserted economic growth was unfairly distributed in this country. He cited a newspaper article here: (Piketty 2017)
The Nature of Man
Sure, I'll concede that the state is able to exist because it has a monopoly on force. However, that monopoly was not achieved through an original use of force. The population signed a social contract with government so as to end the madness and anarchy of the "state of nature".
My reference to "benevolent" and "malevolent" was a direct reference to how humans would exist within the theoretical state of nature. Locke believed that the state of nature was a relative utopia, in that mankind is inherently benevolent. Whereas Hobbes believed that in the "state of nature" there is nothing but madness, everyone owns everything that is theoretically conceivable. There is no reason nor semblance of stability.
The state exists, in Hobbes point of view, because the "state of nature" is a terrible existence for mankind. The state brings stability, structure, and order to society. Locke would argue that the state would exist because it is relatively mutually beneficial for everyone. That the "state of nature" is largely only a theoretical framework. The state gives the order and structure to society that we all recognize and enjoy.
I fall into the Hobbes party on the debate of the "state of nature". I do not believe that we are all "benevolent".
Now, as to taxes. Because the state is mutually beneficial to all, taxes so as to fund the state are permissible. For the state to exist, there needs funding. Our current state has a constitution that permits the existence of the welfare state. A welfare state exists to help those in need in society, and is run by the government, because of the historical limitations and failings of "charity". We have all agreed that the current state we live in has a right to exist, because it is mutually beneficial, therefore the state has the right to look out for all of our best interests and needs.
As noted already in the comments of this post, the current share that the top 1% have in regards to yearly income has not been earned. They have not worked harder and not better to deserve the share that they currently receive. They have the share that they currently do because they have taken advantage of the working class (the majority of Americans) and have had the support of the American government to do so. They have given themselves more and more, in regards to yearly income, purely at the expense of the majority of the American public. A redistribution of ill-gotten gains is a "benevolent" action in a situation such as this.
A response follows:
The Nature of Man in Government
However, I have no issues with people that would choose to live in that manner at their discretion, or at least allow them the opportunity to try.
If you believe that humanity is fundamentally not benevolent, that is, malevolent, yet you seem to propose putting people in charge of the taking from one party and giving to another. Do you see why I might have a slight problem with your proposal?
Since you seem to be dancing, it indicates to me that you are aware of the implications also, and wish to avoid them.
I do think there may be some alternative ways of dealing with the issues you raise, but I'd like to just call it what it is - a monopoly on force, with some parties perhaps trustworthy and noble, and others dishonest and calculating. I'd also suggest that since the organization we are talking about involves power, that it may very well attract a disproportionately larger number of people in the latter category.
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."