>>I'm not sure of the logic that says that anyone who earns less than you (or I) doesn't work as hard. There are jobs where people work very hard for much lower salaries. There are people out there who work more than one job to make ends meet and still earn less than you or I.
>>
>>This still begs the question, why does this make them entitled to some of what I have earned?
>
>Redistribution of wealth can mean many things. Collecting taxes build schools, roads , other insfrastructure , provides for healtcare
>etc etc. Where did you read (post link if you don't mind) where it says 'redistribution of wealth' means they will take money from you and give it to the waitress or janitor ?

Actually, the redistribution of wealth is a long and honored tradition here, only it's called anything but. In the days of old you hired a few thugs to scare off the farmers of the pastures you claimed, and you got to keep that - redistribution at work. You became an official and took a bribe - redistribution. You {strike}bribed{/strike} lobbied for a change of law - your business became less taxed, redistribution. You created a monopoly and took over your competitors - redistribution. You intimidated the unions in your factories and paid your workforce less so you could pay your Pinkertons and still be far ahead - redistribution. You threaten to move your plant unless you're tax exempt - redistribution. You find a loophole allowing you to charge usury interest - redistribution.

Any distribution that's different from what it was before, is RE-distribution. It doesn't matter which way it goes. Also, there's no "natural", "just", or any other right distribution which would be used to measure how others are wrong. Any model of distribution which deurinates sufficient number of people sufficiently badly is bound to be replaced with another, which will then once be replaced with yet another etc etc ad infinitum.