Extreme inequality represents a grave challenge for impoverished individuals and poses a threat to economic growth and stability. Despite the fulfillment of affirmative action measures aimed at promoting equal opportunities, they often prove inadequate in effectively reducing inequality. Mathematical models and simulations have demonstrated that even when equal opportunities are present, wealth tends to concentrate in the hands of a privileged few, leaving the majority of the population in dire poverty. This phenomenon, known as condensation, has been shown to be an inevitable outcome in economic models that rely on fair exchange. In light of the escalating levels of inequality in the 21st century and the significant state intervention necessitated by the recent COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of scholars are abandoning neo-liberal ideologies. Instead, they propose a more robust role for the state in the economy, utilizing mechanisms such as taxation, regulation, and universal allocations. This paper begins with the assumption that state intervention is essential to effectively reduce inequality and to revitalize the economy. Subsequently, it conducts a comparative analysis of various taxation and redistribution mechanisms, with a particular emphasis on their impact on inequality indices, including the Gini coefficient. Specifically, it compares the effects of fortune and consumption-based taxation, as well as universal redistribution mechanisms or targeted redistribution mechanisms aimed at assisting the most economically disadvantaged individuals. The results suggest that fortune taxation are more effective than consumption-based taxation to reduce inequality.
Keywords: econophysics; exchange models; inequality.