Good question. The answer depends on your definition of wealth and where it came from.

Current popular thinking is that wealth is "created", that it was conjured out of thin air by hard work and determination and therefore is the sole property of the owner.

If the above definition is true, then no one has the right to storm the coffers, and all taxes, of all kinds, should be abolished and then the same geniuses who "created" their wealth would then have to "create" roads, water treatment systems and electrical grids.... and no, they couldn't have employees or laborers do it for them, they'd have to do it all on their own, from crushing gravel to smelting iron ore to sewing their own clothes and growing their own food when not building the other aparatus needed merely to keep them alive.

But, these folks didn't have to do all that, because other people did it for them, AND all of these other peripheral things, like roads, water treatment systems, public education, etc, allowed for a population that was healthy and smart enough to secure employment in the economy to be able to go out and make money, and then use that money to buy the products and services of the wealthy.

ssssooooooo, then one could say that the wealth was not truly "created", more that it was transferred from one person to another.

Buddy deciding to buy your widget means that he already has money in his pocket (or credit to make up for his falling wages it seems which won't last too much longer)

So he has TRANSFERRED, or distributed, some of his wealth to you, you didn't just create it out of the blue.

Therefore, for those who don't have to worry about where their next paycheque or meal is coming from, it's safe to say that everyone needs to do their part to make society work. If that's the difference between being able to afford only two summer homes and not three, while the average joe has trouble ponying up the cash to pay for lunch, I don't think that's such a raw deal myself, and that yes, the rich should indeed be taxed more for that very reason. But, it seems that whenever any scrap of wealth is going to be redistributed back to the middle class working joe (who is still having trouble to pay for lunch) the rich howl from the balconies of their second home that we're turning into a communist nightmare.

And that leads into your next point, what classifies as being super rich?

It sure as heck aint being a millionaire.

Today, if you're worth a million that's still pretty much middle class territory (upper middle class actually, but nowhere near being considered "rich")

You're 'super rich' when you're mulling over whether or not to buy a gulfstream jet, I think they go for a cool 40 mil not counting all the additional costs

Or, you're probably also super rich when you buy a 10 thousand dollar martini in NY without batting an eyelash

Can you explain which part of the principle you cite as current popular thinking would prohibit division of labour?

No, sorry Karl, you are wrong.  I enrich my employer by giving more value than I get.  I can just as easily take my skills elsewhere, even into my own business, and make the money.  I chose to sell my skills to my current employer.  They are not using me. It is not a parasitic relationship, it is a symbiotic one.  They own me nothing as I can always take my skills elsewhere if I feel I am not getting compensated for them.

This ideal of rich people exploiting the masses is as outdated as is the author.  WHat most dont understand is that Karl Marx had no conception of Capitalism (how could he?  he never saw it, just Feudalism and socialism), and therefore badly missed the boat.

The Rich earn their money just like I do.  And the concept that they are stealing it is not only insanely stupid, but a sure way to destroy the golden goose.  I am surprised you even propose it.  Even Keynes was not that idiotic. 

I totally agree that the idea of rich people exploiting the masses is outdated in democracies. However that doesn't make your statement true that Marx only knew Feudalism and socialism. In fact he lived in a society which didnt have such "socialist" features as:

1) Minimum Wage

2) Anti-Trust Laws (Adam Smith wouldnt like those, he only opposed encouraging Trusts but he opposed anti-trust laws, I mean I think we all can agree that Anti-Trust Laws seem to work better than without but it isn't something which is "free market"

3) Legal Worker Unions

4) ban of children labour.

It was not a very nice free market society but england was a free market society in the 19th Century not a feudal.

Minimum wage encourages inflation and creates unemployment. I don't see it as particularly good for the poor. It's good only for those lucky enough to get a job and too lazy to improve their lot by working harder and learning.

Anti-trust laws are certainly not free market. But I never understood why it is obvious that they are good. Seems to me like all examples cited for anti-trust laws actually protecting customers (as opposed to protecting other greedy companies) are cases of resource (rather than product) monopolies. And all such monopolies could certainly be handled without anti-trust law, for example by modifying the tax system to tax natural resource property claims.

They are a feature of a free market just like supplier trusts are. Did you know that unions are specifically exempted from anti-trust laws?

Child labour is a result of poverty, not a free market. The free market concerns only legal agents in the market, it doesn't say at what age a person becomes a legal agent and participant in whatever market system we have.

What capitalism did do, however, was create the enormous wealth needed to worry about child labour.

Banning child labour does NOT solve the problem child labour itself tries to solve. It merely takes away from the really poor one of their options.

Yes, and England abolished slavery world-wide (wherever it had the power to do so). I don't recall a similar accomplishment coming from the communists.

what are you attacking me on? I never said that minimum wages are good, just that they certainly aren't free market so the absence of them is free market.

Okay you might have another opinion on Anti-Trust laws then me but I mostly mentioned it because having no anti-trust laws is very free market in the original idea of Adam Smith.

Legal Worker Unions aren't too encouraged by Smith either as he disliked the Idea that groups of employees can dictate the wages (nor did he like that groups of employers dictate them using trusts) but yeah he wasn't for keeping the ban of labour unions either.

Yah okay the children labour example was pretty bad I admit.

Still you agree with me that England was neither feudal nor socialist in the 19th century so Marx, as opposed to DrGuys statement, didn't only know socialism and feudalism but a free market society as well?

What do you mean "attack"? I merely commented on the points you raised. I didn't make any claims about your opinions regarding those points.

Yes, and you were right.

Exactly.

Yes, I agree with you. Marx knew a free market society.

I disagree, minimum wage can prevent exploitation with pretty well no negative impact on unemployment or inflation. It's only if you set the minimum wage too high that you get real problems.

Reduced competition means less choice and higher prices (and often worse efficiency) for the consumer in many cases. Meanwhile you can have two large companies that should be competing with each other (hence driving down costs, increasing efficiency, and increasing choice), but if there are no anti-trust laws they may decide to collude together and act as a monopoly, sharing the additional proceeds they gain as a result.

Well if the government didn't provide education, and instead left it to the market, child poverty would be determined by parents income (and how much they like their children), since that would affect whether they could afford to send their children to school or not. Hence if you go totally free market and look to abolish public education you don't end up with a good result.

I'd agree though that simply banning child labour doesn't solve the problem.

You noticed I said socialism and feudalims (or you can say Monarchism).  About all he did know was a class system based upon royalty and position in society.  SOmething the US (with the exception of some self apointed snobs) has never had.

so UK is stil a feudalist state, must have missed that.

Yap, which is exactly why wealth redistribution is wrong.

In a non free society with slavery, serfdom, caste system, etc. You have the rich being parasites, people who were born into nobility and who take wealth from the poor, making EVERYONE poorer, but ensuring they are the relative rich rather then the relative poor. That is a perfect example of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich. Communism and socialism is wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Both are catastrophic.

I am good enough at math to know exactly how much money I am making my employer, and often times it is indeed several times what he pays me. But it is a mutally beneficial relationship, I can and I HAVE left jobs before. I quite and found another job, since I live in a free society nothing prevents me from doing so, which is why the so called "rich" are not parasites exploiting me.

Can you please provide an example where minimum wage can prevent exploitation (not already covered by other laws, such as employing illigal immigrants, etc)?

Must have missed where I said that when Karl lived.  Last I checked he was dead, and wrote the communist manifesto back in the 19th century.  But then I am not the one saying that the UK is 2 centuries behind the times.

UK is still a monarchy. Since 1689 the sovereignty lies into the hands of the parliament so when you call the England of the 19th century a feudal state it still is, quite easy.

I suggest you look up what defines a feudal state before saying it was one.