This is not new. Karl Marx went further, and indicated what should be done.
He started with gentle measures, but later gets to armed revolution.
Liberal, is that where you would take it? What do you think?
BTW exactly how many college level econ classes have you completed, what was your grade?
I had an interesting discussion with a California secondary teacher, a few years ago. She held a full credential, meaning an education equal to a Master Degree.
She held strong opinions about politics, distribution of income, etc. She had reached that point o holding such opinions, and being able to direct the thinking of other peoples' children,
...but she had not completed even one economics course!!!
NOW I will go further. If we took the people at the very bottom, gave each one $100,000 for doing nothing at all. In a surprisingly short time, they would squander all the money.
In reality that $100,000 would have to come from somewhere. From another person, since trees and cats and governments don't have any money of their own.
Now the original owner of the $100,000 invested the money wisely, to earn income. To earn income, he had a business, which provided jobs and income to others.
The government didn't build that business. He did.
Our system is a mixed economy. Pretty much similar to Canada and Sweden, except our fraction of government involvement is somewhat smaller than theirs.
So how much of the business owners' money should be taken from them, to grant more money to unproductive people at the bottom?
Obamacare is a good illustration of how government harms, not helps people. Many people work 29 hours or less, to avoid the governments messing around with businesses and our economy.
I dream of a world like it was when I completed college, when I got 40 hours work, my employer could drill in California for more oil, health care was reasonably priced, etc.
But alas, now California politics is a monopoly by democrats, and my first two employers, although still successful, have left California, the place of their founding, to escape the insanity of redistribution policies.
So in the end, redistribution provides jobs for middlemen government meddlers, but the true producers go elsewhere.
And the level of production, the true source of wealth, goes down not up.