Claiming that work ethic is the sole factor would be a gross overgeneralization. There are outside influences which, by definition, are outside of a person's control and therefore can't be changed by him/her, which is why I am ignoring them, although I realize that I did not give my reason for doing so before.

I think we agree that a person's work ethic is positively correlated with financial success at least somewhat, even in the presence these outside factors. I think most people, rich and poor, have this perception also (I don't have any way to prove this). Since (in my opinion) a better overall work ethic would be good for society, and since people want money (I don't have evidence for this statement either), I think society would be well served if this correlation wasn't downplayed, which I think is one of the effects of wealth re-distribution.

In my opinion, the message that is sent when wealth is redistributed is that the rich have acquired their money through randomness or even misdeeds, and that it is only fair that the poor get their piece of the pie. In other words, it's not your fault that you're broke, just keep doing what you're doing and we'll make sure you get you yours.

I realize that this is an oversimplification. I also think that the the more fortunate (since it is mostly out of their control?) should help the less fortunate. But I think when the government forces this, it legitimizes the path that the poor have followed to get where they are. Maybe it is bad luck or persecution. But it is often a question of work ethic.

If you think I am off the mark that's fine, and feel free to trash my theory. But I don't want to debate what percent of someones's net worth is attributable to hard work, or how many bums out of 10 would work if there was no wel-fare.