12 Oct '21 13:49>1 edit
@metal-brain saidYou'd have to define wealth,,,,,assets, cars, land, currency, horses, ....and how to divide up an airplane . Too broad of a premise. Like if everyone had $67,000, then, what would happen next? Would they buy something made by someone in his garage, or pay a fellow to mow the lawn? If they did, then the guy in the garage would have more money than the guy who buys something from him. And the cycle begins all over again!!!! Why, the guy in the garage says, Dam, I think I will keep this up and get rich!
What if all wealth was divided equally and nobody wanted to work for one another?
Nobody would need money because everyone would already have it. Are you making the argument that wealth inequality is essential for an efficiently run society?
Taking your premise to the Nth degree, if everyone has all they need, you imply that they do not spend money. How do they get gas, or lettuce, or buy a newspaper.?
Yes, for a society to 'run efficiently', it has to have people who do things for other people. Like fix my car or paint my house. Likewise, a lawyer might be paid to advise someone on how to do something that will improve their lives. I do see some 'inequality' in that scenario, as a house painter would not likely be as wealthy as a guy who owns this nice house, or who gets paid for advice with knowledge learned from college education.