I agree, dear @Remi Okeke. People are different - which comes in many forms, for example, in relation to money-making skills.

As your question is about fairness of redistribution, I would refer to John Rawls Theory of Justice. Simplified: A decision is fair/just if it is taken without knowing how this will impact on youself (veil of ignorance). Of course this is a fictional situation, but could be useful to underpin an argument for the one or the other.

In this view, I would expect some redistribution considered to be fair, as people may risk poverty/starving if there is no redistribution, but certainly no total equality.

I liked this way of framing the problem, @Klaus Jacob. Nice to quote John Rawls's Theory of Justice. I agree that it deals with the problem of inequality in the distribution of wealth.

Not always. See for instance Bolivia where the tradition is private institutions (unions, and indigenous movements) that are considered as having a "state quality" (C. Lund) and act as land tenure authorities conferring rights and political identities to smallholders in situations of "frontier". References on this topic can be given if needed.

Very interesting these facts about Bolivia, @J. P. Jacob. Thanks.

I think that Prof. @Ben Levin brings great ideas, brings a new way of framing this issue, when affirming that the great part of the governmental actions is directly subordinated to the social questions. The original question sought to bring different points of view regarding the burning issue of state participation in reducing social inequalities. In other words, it is the big picture of the Welfare State.