Open your eyes by looking around the world and observe the countries that are ahead of the US on this point. Varn is right. You need something in the middle - but what is it?

There is no good alternative to markets. Markets lets people act as free agents and is a good mechanism for determining prices as well as supply an demand. Capitalism is good in the sense that everyone needs to optimize the use of resources so costs are less than revenue - otherwise all businesses will basically die or need subsidies.

The bad way to implement capitalism is one that results in companies with monopolistic power, ability to coerce competitors, where they have a controlling power over their employees by for instance linking health care to the job, where the legal system is tilted in favor of the company with the most money, people feel intimidated not to say the truth, the organizational hierarchy gives managers unfair power over their team members and where it results in big income inequality. Also where corporations and money can influence the political system.

The system needs to allow for some inequality. If everybody is to be equal we'd have a system like Communism in Russia from 1945-1990. I was the ans saw it first hand. Not a great solution because it holds back the ones with the most talent, intelligence and willingness to work. Results should be rewarded - it drives the basic human instinct to make the best for themselves.

A system with big inequalities leads to abuse of the population by the elite and is likely to end in social unrest or even civil war. Just take Europe from 1600 - 1800 where the most obvious example was France and their revolution where the King and nobility all lost their heads in the guillotine. Or Russia op to 1917 when the Communist killed Zar Nikolai and his family. There after they made museums to display all the extravagant items the elite had had to the starving population. Golden carets, Faberge eggs, golden robes etc.

The countries in northers Europe like the dutch and Scandinavians are worlds leading in creating societies that have found a better balance of income distribution. The discussion taking place in the US now about income distribution took place there some 40 years ago and was not implemented because it was believed to reduce incentive to work too much. Health care is not tied to the employer and the power over employees is much less - and human decency much higher - including survey results that show people are among the happiest in the world.

The large countries I've lived in - Germany and the US - tend to have enough in themselves and be inward looking and suffer from the "Not invented here" syndrome which leads to an unwillingness to accept that others might have already found better solutions then themselves. So my recommendation is to look at other countries, look at the ones that are better off and identify which of their solutions could be implemented.

Sounds like communism, and without incentive, something to satisfy their greed or show their superiority, humans get and stay lazy.. Capitalism, the other extreme, isn’t working, either; where the winner’s wealth compounds their ability to acquire more, while limiting the ability of others to win.

We need a form of socialism, something in the middle, collectively helping all achieve what no one person can alone, yet leaving various incentives to encourage progress through rewards.

If you're arguing for universal basic income, I'm in agreement with you, depending on the implementation.

First - the entire world is no where near the utopia you described. Second, the simple answer is yes and no!
Your 2nd question sounds like a communistic socialist society. We should, however, raise the standards
of the extremely poor an indigent. Not an easy task. The world ( mostly us) grows plenty of food. The problem is getting it to those in need.