As you may have noticed, one of the two major political parties in the United States is all about redistributing income. According to supporters of that particular political party, the distribution of income that results before redistribution is not equal enough and is not fair. Consequently, much of the legislation supported by this political party is designed to take income away from Peter (who evidently has more income than would be fair) and give it to Paul (who evidently has less income than would be fair).
Members of this political party also complain that the top 1% of income earners in the United States earn way, way too much more than 1% of total income, and the lowest 20% of income earners earn way, way too much less than 20%. Some people agree with the claims of this political party; some people do not.
The word "fair" has no clear, settled meaning. Yet, we all use the word as if we all know exactly what it means. In my judgment, the word "fair" cannot be used in any logical way in talking about the distribution of income.
Some people say that "fair" means "equal." But it's hard to see how equal income for engineers and restaurant servers could be thought fair by anyone. Moreover, I've never met anyone who thought engineers and restaurant servers should earn equal income. Some people say that "fair" means "deserved." Perhaps, but if so, what will we want to say "deserved" means? Does Tiger Woods deserve his enormous income, just because he possesses athletic abilities particularly suited to hitting golf balls into small holes? Does Bill Gates deserve his enormous income, just because his mind is so structured that DOS made sense to him for a computer operating system? Don't we all "deserve" prosperity?
The distribution of income in the United States is unequal because the capabilities of people are unequal and because all people do not want the same goods and services. Equal income cannot and will not come about in a society of people who have different capabilities and who have different wants.
Attempts to redistribute income in the United States, which have been ongoing on a major scale since the "War on Poverty" initiated by President Lyndon Johnson in the early 1970s, have scarcely changed the real distribution of income in the United States. Today, through a variety of transfer payment programs, government transfers about $1 trillion per year from someone who earned the income to someone who did not. The simple truth is that if somehow overnight, income were distributed exactly equally among the nation's 125 million households, within just a few weeks, income would once again be distributed unequally. Until people all have the same capabilities and the same economic wants, the distribution of income will remain unequal.
Human prosperity is not the same thing as the distribution of income. As an observable matter of fact, human prosperity around the world has been rising dramatically over the past 250 years. Perhaps people would benefit by focusing more on the causes of human prosperity and less on the distribution of income. But try telling that to the political party that favors redistribution of income.
P.S. I am personally not a member of a political party. I am not a partisan, so please don't disparage my simple observation of obvious truth for political argument.