Here's Robert Samuelson with "The backlash against the rich." In the first part he notes that income inequality is real and widespread, and there are several reasons why inequality has accelerated, but then questions what can and should be done about it:
The trouble is that the wealthy don’t fit the stereotypes: They aren’t all pampered CEOs, hotshot investment bankers, pop stars and athletes. Many own small and medium-sized companies. Half the wealth of the richest 1 percent consists of stakes in these firms. That’s double their holdings of stocks, bonds and mutual funds, according to figures compiled by economist Edward Wolff of New York University. Reid would pay for Obama’s jobs plan by taxing the people who are supposed to create jobs. Does that make sense?I would love to join the chorus of Americans who have decided: hey do you know who should pay for the government? Somebody else. Isn't that easy? And then it's a short leap to justify it (because it has to be justified) by convincing yourself it's fair that they pay more. Did they work harder or sacrifice more or take big risks to build up a company from their parent's garage? Well, tough - hand it over.
I wish we had a flatter tax structure and maybe the rich should pay more in taxes. But I also believe that when nearly half of Americans have no stake in the cost of government, there's no incentive to limit the size of that government.