This topic has been bothering me for a while now, so please excuse my rant if it ain't your thing.

The world is filled with economic hardship for many as it is filled with excess for some. And still others earn enough to exist somewhere between "surviving" to "comfortable". The pathways to all these places come with negative baggage, and can include everything from winning the birth lottery to mental health issues to serious sacrifices.

What I'm trying to figure out is if there is a middle ground anywhere. Surely a person with enough wealth for 100,000 lifetimes doesn't need it all. And just as surely a person with no food, housing, or clothing needs more. But how do we get from A to B? I have seen the "contribution" discussion and I'm all for it. What it says is that people are rewarded based on their contribution to systems, companies, or others. So a person who contributes much, is rewarded in kind. And vice versa. People who contribute nothing, get nothing. But this hard for people to see and live with. Those who have everything often bother those who do not. Just as those who have nothing often bother those with more.

So now we come to "everyone shares". A lot of people think this is a good solution. I've seen it tried elsewhere, and it is uglier than "contribution". No one has any incentive to try to be better or do more. The rewards are the same. So what happens over time is that the average output of that society declines. As more and more people care less and less, they do less and less leaving less pie to share. The result is cold war Russia or post WW2 East Berlin or modern day Venezuela. None of these succeeded and have evolved accordingly.

So good people, the question still remains. How do we make sure that we take care of our people? How do we give people the incentives to contribute, while making sure we do not leave people out of the system? How do we make sure people don't abuse the systems and take when they could contribute? Where is the clear line in all this haze?