What about Distributism?

I have been browsing websites and came across http://distributistreview.com

This website advocates an economic philosophy known as Distributism. I had to check Wikipedia to figure out what Distributism was, but it can be summed up as follows:

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or by accomplished individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). Distributism therefore advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership and, according to co-operative economist Race Mathews, maintains that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.

The means of production (or capital) include anything that can make money, e.g. land, machines, or money itself. I prefer to use the term "wealth" as people tend to not know what you are talking about if you use the term "means of production."

Land is a unique form of wealth in that is is fixed, immovable, and illiquid. Therefore, assuming a benevolent dictatorship or a strong democracy, if you wanted to spread wealth as much as possible across the population, it's better to spread land rather than money or machines because land cannot be stolen whereas money and machines can.

Assuming there is a world government, one option is for the government to legislate that all land in the world is divided equally among the world's population. According to my rough calculations, if all land in the world were to be equally divided among the world's population, each person would get a field that is 70,000 square meters. If an individual had a child, the government would need divide the land up to give the child a portion of the parents' land. For each, woman A and man B had child C. Originally woman A and man B each had 70,000 square meters of land. After they have child C, each of them have 46,666 square meters of land.

Different land has different value. Desert land is less valuable than fertile farmland. Therefore, when the government divides land, there will be arguments. The fairest and most transparent fix this problem that I can think of is if the government allocates land randomly.

Although this is nice in theory, in practice it would be almost impossible. Legal structures already exist. To take all land and redistribute it would mean the government would need to coercively take land from those who have more than normal. If the top 10% owned 80% of all land, the government need to use force to remove land from the top 10% so that they would only own 10%. This is not realistic. A more familiar and less controversial way to transfer wealth and achieve similar goals is to use taxation to target the rich and spread wealth to the poor.

What the government should do is tax the rich, e.g. through income tax, land tax, or any tax, and place the money into a trust fund that is managed by, say, the world's top 100 fund managers (performance can be based on returns net of fees over a long period of time). The income from the trust fund in the form of rental income, dividend income, or interest income can be use to fund soup kitchens and bread lines to ensure the poor do not starve.