Let's indulge in a little experiment. Let us suppose that we could actually "spread the wealth around". let us say the government had unlimited power and actually could indulge in the sort of wealth redistribution that some wish.

First, there is a question of logistics. Money is easy, we could simply seize it and pass it around. But how to handle tangible assets, such as stores, factories, farms? Would the government simply own them on behalf of the people? We saw how poorly that worked out in Russia. Or will we make "worker's guilds" akin to Italian fascism, where the employees of a firm own it? Again, the track record is not promising. Probably the best solution would be to leave them in the hands of their owners and attach some sort of lien to be paid to the American people out of future earnings.

But such a  lien, besides slowing economic expansion to a crawl by forcing earnings to go into paying off this lien rather than expanding business, would probably pay only a pittance to each citizen. So, though there is a huge mass of stored wealth in our infrastructure, I think the potential for spreading that wealth around is pretty small, and any plan to do so will take a long time to come to fruition.

However, in the immediate sense, I suppose the easiest "spreading" we could do would be cash assets. They are easy to find and seize. So, we have a little over $14 trillion in money in the federal reserve system. If we redistribute that to each of the approximately 300,000,000 citizens, that amounts to about $47,000 each. Let us say there are some additional assets, holdings in foreign currency, and so on, so that each person gets $50,000. Not a fortune, but a nice sized check for everyone.

However, how much will it help? How long do you think that $50,000 will last? Some will probably invest it wisely, maybe start some sort of business or buy a home. The rest will likely squander it. Over the years, the poor have received many times that $50,000 in welfare benefits, yet we still have poor people. Is it likely a one time infusion of $50,000 will lift them out of poverty? A few perhaps, but for the vast majority, no.

In Keynesian theory it will be a bonanza, increasing spending tremendously. But in terms of sensible economics, it will be a nightmare, destroying years of capital formation and redirecting all of our wealth to those consumer good industries favored by the least frugal. Liquor production and expensive foodstuffs would do well, so would vacation industries. Car sellers and manufacturers may do well, and so would new home construction. The government could claim statistical bonanzas, as they measure economic progress largely in terms of consumer driven industries.

On the other hand, the families who were saving for college or retirement, who had more than $50K will see their futures looking a little bit less bright. Similarly people who were saving to start a business and lost more than $50K. Investors who had a good track record at anticipating market needs will be reduced to starting over, on equal footing with investors who had no knowledge at all. Large funds set up against equipment purchase or depreciation funds will be destroyed, as will funds accumulated for expansion of existing concerns.

In short, plans to "spread the wealth around" will not just harm a few wealthy souls, they would, to whatever degree they succeed, end up causing dislocations in the economy, employing fewer in less desirable jobs, making things run less efficiently and impoverishing everyone. At best they will provide a temporary boon to a few, while placing unfair burdens on everyone else.

Of course, no scheme would be as comprehensive as the one I described, but a smaller scope or a more gradual approach does not change the facts, it simply makes them a bit more attenuated. Rather than losing everything all at once, the wealthy will lose a little bit at a time over years. The impact is the same, just slower. Rather than gutting the capital markets, it just slowly bleeds them, if we slowly tax the wealthy to death. The final outcome is the same.

The irony is the victims most effected will be those who supposedly benefit. When companies expand, the biggest beneficiaries are the poor and unemployed, who are offered new job opportunities. Either in the new firms, or in jobs vacated by those moving to the new industries. As the economy expands, more and more marginal workers are given opportunities as the demand for labor increases.

However, if we steal from "the rich", capital accumulation slows, investment slows, and the economy grows more slowly or stagnates. The poor may benefit in the short term from government handouts, but at the expense of future prospects. In other words, they trade a chance at supporting themselves at a decent standard of living for a pittance of a government handout.

Someone needs to explain this to the poor, the way Reagan once did, rather than apologizing for "favoring the rich" with cuts. We need to stop accepting the socialist view of the economy.