by Patrick Appel
Sam Harris contemplates it:
[T]here is no reason to think that we have reached the upper bound of wealth inequality, as not every breakthrough in technology creates new jobs. The ultimate labor saving device might be just that—the ultimate labor saving device. Imagine the future Google of robotics or nanotechnology: Its CEO could make Steve Jobs look like a sharecropper, and its products could put tens of millions of people out of work.
What would it mean for one person to hold the most valuable patents compatible with the laws of physics and to amass more wealth than everyone else on the Forbes 400 list combined? How many Republicans who have vowed not to raise taxes on billionaires would want to live in a country with a trillionaire and 30 percent unemployment? If the answer is "none"—and it really must be—then everyone is in favor of "wealth redistribution." They just haven’t been forced to admit it.
Bruce Bartlett, in a related post, argues persuasively that the rich can afford higher taxes.
The Dish 