<p>
[quote]
But don't we make sure everyone starts at the same point to make sure that potentially everyone has the opportunity to finish quickly (barring intrinsic qualities such as strong legs, etc.). In this case, so that everyone can potentially be well off (financially), except for those who don't deserve to be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. The issue I had with your earlier statement was you kept saying "bridge the [financial] gap between rich and poor" as if the whole point was that there was supposed to be less poor people. There's still going to be a lot of very poor people and a lot of very rich people, and that's how it should be. This new statement you make is very different from your earlier ones in the wording.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So when this potentiality has been attained, we have achieved income redistribution have we not?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not the typical definition of income redistribution, which is: "The basic premise of the redistribution of wealth is that money should be distributed so it benefits all members of society, and that the rich should be obliged to assist the poor. Thus, money should be redistributed from the rich to the poor, creating a more financially egalitarian society." Therefore income redistribution is "Robin Hood style".</p>
<p>I think we agree in principle on a lot of points. You're just not abiding by classic definitions (lol - a.k.a wikipedia in this case ;)).</p>