[dabrowski]

> As long as a more equal distribution of wealth would reduce suffering, we can certainly consider wealth inequality harmful.

First you would need to prove that.

Consider a world with perfect income equality. In such a world, there is no economic incentive to work at all.

Second, how do you plan on equalising the income without committing an act of aggression against innocent people?

> One would have to have rather alien values to think that luxuries for a few are preferable to food and health for all.

That's a false dichotomy. What if, say, everyone gets poorer in the process of making it less desirable to be rich?

[mrottenkolber]

> First you would need to prove that.

Right.

> Consider a world with perfect income equality. In such a world, there is no economic incentive to work at all.

Nobody needs an economic incentive to work (please prove me otherwise). In fact, an economic incentive is the only reason we screw other people over and produce shitty work.

[ahomescu1]

> Nobody needs an economic incentive to work (please prove me otherwise).

"Nobody does X" is too strong a statement; when you say something like that, the burden is on you to prove it (by asking everyone in the world, for example). I personally know quite a few people who wouldn't work if they didn't need to.

It's true that some people don't need an economic incentive to work, but others do.

[mrottenkolber]

To back up my claim: The birds with the least natural enemies and the richest environment spend the most time mating (which is our built-in incentive to do many great things).