Personally I believe that social and economic structures are pyramidal, there will always be inequalities and our nature seeks to create hierarchies to guarantee order.
Philanthropy per se is good, i think there are 3 alternatives (at the moment) about who can accumulate the wealth of a country, one in which a democratic state charges high taxes to companies, the other is to have faith that all millionaires will be philanthropists like Bill Gates and the third in which "we are all equal", that is, communism, I think this would not be very popular.
Understanding that there will always be inequality, we can only decide if we want the state or the businessmen to manage most of the money. I suppose there are good arguments in favor of each case...
Btw both have done good things, but the contribution of Mother Teresa is more symbolic while Bill Gates has been more effective.
You're right. Have you ever heard the saying that if all the world's money were redistributed equally, it would end up back in the same hands in 10 or 20 years? I don't know if that's true, but there is some inherent inequality, as some seem better at accumulating and others at spending. The best response may be some combination of your approaches, which you defined quite well there.
I had not heard that fact, but it seems perfectly possible. Thanks!