I seriously thought this was supposed to be satire and kept waiting for the punchline to come... and then I got to the end of the article.
I can't believe this is even being seriously debated. Has no one on this forum ever taken Economics 101?
Deprive people of the ability to reap the fruits of their labor and they will have no incentive to labor. Fabulous wealth is the reward for taking higher risk or for having some kind of scarce, valuable resource. Why would anyone take more risk (starting a new business or "disrupting" an industry) if their reward is capped? Why would anyone go through the hard work of acquiring a scarce resource or in investing in the training to learn a valuable skill if they will never see the dividends of that time and effort? The Great Escape out of poverty experienced by the West is perfectly correlated with the concept of free markets, extension of credit, private property, and other capitalistic ideals espoused in the Enlightenment. Before that, the global extreme poverty rate was something like 99%, compared to ~10% today. The fact that modern people think the solution to eliminating that remaining 10% is to abandon the engine that has brought us this far is the product of a lack of education of our own history.
I understand that some wealth is inherited and is held in the hands of entitled assholes who use it poorly. But the fact that they use it poorly is just my opinion, and I don't run the world. Why should A.Q. Smith or any centralized system of distribution that he can imagine be better able to use my money than I am?
The important thing is to teach the virtues of compassion, generosity, charity, patience, kindness, etc. Any society that lacks those virtues will result in unfairness, inequality, and suffering, regardless of whether or not (or how) wealth is distributed.