For richer or for poorer

In his essay "That It is Not Wicked to Be Rich," William Sumner discusses the call for the government to reapportion money to the poor. It is clear from the get-go that Sumner is in favor of a capitalist economy. Sumner argues that it is ridiculous to penalize someone for the efforts that have gained them wealth, often speaking of "the rich" in ideal terms. Sumner believes that the rich are humans of a more complex nature, suited to the labors of the mind that lead to new inventions and new capital: "Men of routine or men who can do what they are told are not hard to find; but men who can think and plan and tell the routine men what to do are very rare."

It is with logic that Sumner believes the rich come to be as rich as they do; it is society's debt to them: "They are paid in proportion to the supply and demand for them." Without this fiscal and moral encouragement of capitalism to accumulate wealth, Sumner believes that the progress of society would slow.  Sumner also points out that the majority of the reforms intended to assist the poor are represented by members of society's upper echelon and by no workers or laborers. And too often the benefits of the reforms ended up in the hands of classes that did not need them. Sumner also makes a very good argument about hypocrisy when he points out that society views the rise from poverty to riches as exemplary, but is quick to diminish the good intentions of anyone with money.

I agree with Sumner on the more practical points of his argument, but he definitely has a very high view of the rich. Sumner, in reverse to the position of his opponents, generalizes all members of the upper-classes as extremely generous and always willing to give their money to help the poor, things that are clearly untrue. Just like not all of the poor are nice people, neither are the rich. 

I also think that Sumner and his contemporaries were looking at economic gaps in too narrow of terms. It doesn't help anyone to simply redistribute wealth without any regard to an individual's contribution to society, but it's true that the poor are disadvantaged from the start. The greatest contribution the government could give (and can give, since these arguments are still applicable over a hundred years later) would be to provide its citizens with equal educational opportunities so that everyone could develop any skills they desired and be justly compensated.