This speaks to the issue I have with the argument that the "rich" need to shoulder a greater share of the tax burden, which is not with the concept itself, but rather with the commonly-proposed policy implementations. While $200K-$300K is certainly a lot more money than I earn, I don't consider that level of income to be a definition of "rich." No matter what I think, statistics will show that people in this income range are nowhere near the hallowed "1%." I think it's fair to say that most people can, if sufficiently inclined, attain that level of "wealth" through some amount of extra effort and some (usually large) amount of career investment. All that takes is being highly motivated to do whatever it takes to earn more money. People who earn in that range pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, relative to all other groups of taxpayers, and asking them to bleed more is barking up the wrong tree in my opinion.

I define "rich" as the types big moby referred to in his post. These are people that are hard-pressed to spend money faster than they earn it. These people have enough money to buy laws that allow them to retain and grow that wealth, which more or less makes them immune to any discussion of tax increases. Because our lawmakers rely on this contingent for large percentages of their campaign budgets, they are not likely to change that dynamic. If an honest look were ever taken at how much tax revenue these folks should be accounting for, I think the budget deficit would seem a lot less daunting. However....

For reasons others have highlighted (and that the article highlights), I agree that NOBODY, no matter how "rich," should claim that it's possible for all members of society to obtain meaningful wealth through dedication and hard work. A society takes all kinds, and it cannot support an entire population of fat cats. People get paid what the market will bear, and I'm mostly alright with that. White collar people with the attitude that they work harder than everyone else and thus deserve more should be shot. Despite their massive collections of possessions, they do nothing more for the benefit of society than the lowly ditch digger. In many cases, I think it's safe to say that more people benefit (in real ways) from the work of hard laborers than from high wage earners.