Of course, we should do so in a way that helps all. However, even if we distribute help in a totally blind fashion, a single "unit of help" given to those who have less will comprise a larger percentage of their "life capital" (opportunity, potential, resources, etc, for lack of a better term) than a unit of help given to someone who is in a better position. So both the perceived and real impact will be higher for the less fortunate.

Once we have managed to gather a shared set of resources (of course, there will be much grumbling and immense disagreements about the exact amounts), how should it be utilized? Certainly, you aren't suggesting we give a larger share to those who already have more.

If you are worried about the disincentive to contribute upon receiving help, remember, this whole sub-thread started in the context of businesses making use of new, advanced automation technologies and placing large swaths of people out of work.

What if the value of labor for a large percentage of the citizenry really does fall to unemployable levels due to technology? Should we "make up" jobs for them? Let them starve?

Why does the person who can afford to buy an army of robots deserve all of the proceeds? They didn't invent the robots, it took thousands of years and billions of human lives toiling in the dirt for such incredible technology to enter the world.

It isn't impossible to strike balance between helping those who have less, and allowing those who are skilled and make large contributions to be richly rewarded.

And even if many people become somewhat unemployable, society can choose to encourage living productive, engaged lives. We don't need to become zombies hiding in our houses playing video games all day or binge watching netflix non-stop. People still will want to be fulfilled. There is much we can do to promote fulfilling, productive lifestyles and vibrant communities.