A Forbes editorial is unconvincing. Tim Worstall is far from a dispassiinate observer; in fact, as an Adam Smith Institute fellow, it's safe to say that he has a major conflict of interest.
That reducing wealth inequality makes a more fair and prosperous world for the vast majority of people is about as much of an opinion as saying that reducing pollutant exposure reduces cancer risk.
And if you claim that those are "simply" your motives, you're not speaking in good faith.
If every side effect of the redistribution measures is taken into account, or if only policies that were tested and proven to work well are applied. I think then that they could have good results.
Consider that the URSS and Cuba were about redistributing wealth and it didn't end well there.
And yes, those were simply my motives, I also would like everyone to be happy and capable of attending to their basic needs in the world.
That reducing wealth inequality makes a more fair and prosperous world for the vast majority of people is about as much of an opinion as saying that reducing pollutant exposure reduces cancer risk.
And if you claim that those are "simply" your motives, you're not speaking in good faith.