HuffingtonPost
There's your first problem.
But you are correct in that the current tax system is heavily supportive of being rich. I contest, however: isn't that also the point? If we tax rich people until they are poor, we'll just have a country on the poverty-line; moving the bar just re-focuses the target sign. You can say "tax until they're middle class again" but there's no reliable means of gauging when you hit that in real time. Furthermore, the more hostile to the rich, the fewer rich there will be and the less reliable the tax the rich system will prove.
(Let's not ignore that "the rich" already pay absurd rates compared to people on the upper income brackets - say, $100k+ earners account for more than 70% of federal income taxes. That's only 10% more than $200k+ earners. For perspective, the majority of Americans who are not at $100k income pay just over 25% and those with incomes below $40k pay only 3% of total fed income tax; also, more than half of Americans don't pay federal income tax for some reason and less than 10% of those people belong to the $100k+ bracket. No matter how you look at it the federal government is squandering the bulk of its revenue, collecting a lot from a small subset, and then complaining it doesn't get enough from that subset. If the federal government took 100% of what makes "the rich" rich, short of their life and their wits, they'd still squander it all and say they need more to sustain whatever it is they are trying to do.)
The thing is this: the reason "the rich" are rich is because they know how to get rich and know how to continue to be rich. That's not something you can take from them; even if you were to drive their personal finances into the ground once, they'd bounce back up. Yes, there are people who get rich by unscrupulous means but those are not always the people correctly targeted by the said "rich" taxes when those are the people who should be hit. Those people who were honestly rich are more likely to be hurt because they are honest.
>>1
Robust welfare efforts are more dangerous than lower taxes for the poor as far as "supporting ... encouraging their behavior." To borrow from my argument above: I would wager a good portion of the poor most temporarily enriched by these dynamics are those who have abandoned the motivation to work to be rich (or those who do not pay federal income tax).
Also, the invisible hand has nothing to do with class system poising and, furthermore, has been rendered decommissioned due to extreme prejudicial interventionalism. What we call "capitalism" today little looks like what capitalism really is - all the trappings but none of the meat.
I doubt anyone will read to this line.