Years ago an acquaintance of mine suggested that we don't need to
figure out how to redistribute the wealth in this country, at least
not directly.  We need to figure out how to redistribute the work.

If, for example, lawyers, notorious for the number of hours a week
they work, could be convinced to spend only 50 hours a week at work,
instead of the 60-70 of which we read in polls, their physical and
emotonal health would improve, as would their family lives.  Many
benefits would accrue to them and there would be work for other
lawyers, who are not making as much money (don't be misled by averages
of which you read about lawyer earnings--income is very unevenly
distributed).

I heard, within the last year or so, of a well known television, radio
and book writing pundit who said that if he had to pay any more tax
that he was going to shut his operation down.  He didn't need to make
any more money, he said, and it wouldn't be worth it to him if his
income was limited so he would just quit and put everyone who depended
on his operation out of work.  My thought was "good," and not just
because I don't particularly like what this person has to say.  My
thought was that he and his family would be better off (having heard
him describe his work and family life a time or two on the air) and
there would be opportunity for someone else to earn a better living
than they do by filling his air time, by having the public's book
buying money go to other authors who need the money.  All those people
he is always reminding us that he "supports" would work for those who
flowed into the space his absence would create.

I am not into passing laws (or repealing them) as a means of trying to
reshape the world.  If I were I would suggest that a 100% tax on
income above a certain level would give people incentive to stop
working (at least stop making money--there is plenty of good "work"
needing to get done--starting in our own homes--that does not involve
a monetary pay off) so others would have opportunity and so that they
would have time for other endeavors.  That's as good or bad an idea as
*any* legislative social engineering.   I would hope that people would
develop (or have developed in them) values and light such that they
would realize how they are damaging themselves by putting a
disproportionate amount of themselves into making money (it's an
obsession in our culture, which is in many ways a secular--and, to
some evangelists, a spriritual--fertility cult) and, like John
Woolman, would see how limiting their trade would improve their
condition. 

We are led to believe that puting all this effort, all of ourselves,
into making money is the way to "security" for ourselves and our
families.  The Adversary (often through investment and life insurance
advertising) tells us we are doing it for our families, for our
children.  Like all sin, greed (which does not necessarily manifest
itself negatively toward others but is characterized by a
disproportionate emphasis on one's own needs) does not deliver what it
promises.  Instead of making our lives better our being centered on
prosperity and "security" actually gets us out of right relationship
and makes us less secure. 

5:48:23 AM