That actually is an Interesting Thought Experiment.
If everyone had the same amount of money, I think a lot of people just wouldn't show up to work the next day.
However, I would suggest a system whereby everyone was born with a trust that held an equal share of 50% of the worlds resources.
The other 50% could continue to be held by utilities, government, and wealthy citizens. - You see, the wealthy wouldn't otherwise take very kindly to being thrown out on the street. - But, simply appropriating half of their wares wouldn't exactly change their lifestyle either, not one iota.
The problem is that the education system would have to fundamentally change... which would take a few generations to get everyone on the same page. Even then, we're still going to have a lot of stupid parents. So, the trusts would have to be setup so that parents couldn't access or control them.
You still couldn't prevent foolish people from cashing in their trust as soon as they turned 18. So, perhaps it would have to only allow gradual draw downs. Yet, it cannot be setup where people could just fail to show up for work, and draw down on their resources for their entire life. - That would cause the system to crash.
We essentially just need a system where the merits of hard work, intelligence, and good will... combine to equate the proverbial American dream.
It can be argued that we already have such a system. However, the proof is that - far too many are continuously left behind, all over the world... and, through no fault of their own.
Conversely, no one person needs 20,000 acres of anything. So, that shouldn't be allowed unless they can prove that those 20,000 acres are being used towards bettering society in some meaningful way.
Sure, there will always be lazy people with massive faults, that continue to lose out... as they should. However, at present, there are plenty of lazy people with enough land and money to never work again. But, this is primarily just wealth from past generations. - Yet, do lazy people really deserve to retain assets generated by someone else, without ever working? How does this improve or contribute to society?
Rather, we need a system that promotes merit, whilst providing everyone a leg up to start with. - So, that essentially no one can be born into poverty. But, everyone will absolutely have to work hard - including policy makers - to keep what they have.
Also, the value of hard work is not mutually exclusive from supply and demand. But, being a janitor is hard work, and since very few want to do it... its value should reflect its supply and demand. This would be mitigated by the fact that it's not rocket science, and anyone can do it. So, a rocket scientist or a doctor are still going to have more value to society, in their own unique ways.
We would ultimately need to reward skill and inventiveness over laziness... but, not to the point where anyone could ever get to the point that they would never have to work again, or encroach too far into everyone else's space.
Still, there would need to be price controls on supply and demand. We can't have people spending all their money on junk. So, the cost of things would also have to include a reflection of how they are valued to society as a whole... which means that some nice things would simply have to get less expensive.
It is a very complex discussion, and would likely take many generations to tweak, and value would continue to evolve based on technological advancements. But, working towards a collective equity is definitely worth trying... if being poor and malnourished, and underrepresented can be prevented, at the cost of just about zip - to the lifestyle of the aristocrats.
