You ignore, or at least minimize, the economic mobility of our free enterprise system. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban - just to name some notable examples - started with zip and made not only themselves but thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of other people very wealthy. People move into (and out of) economic strata all the time. It is a myth that all the wealth just circulates among the already rich.
Hundreds of thousands? Don't make me laugh.
Meritocracy has produced 100 to 1 failure per success ratio, and thats being ultra generous. Truth is probably closer to 10,000 to 1. Part of the problem is that any "loss" in meritocracy condemns your entire future. Get sick without health care? better win the lottery because your not getting a "helpful for you" loan, grant, or anything else at all.
People move in and out of the middle and upper brackets however, most of the wealth which cycles "down" to the poor only does so in a couple of forms.
Wages - which are always reclaimed through price fixing and profit margins.
Loans - which trickle down, create debt, then trickle the profits back up.
Neither of these tend to "stay" with those who receive them long enough to build capital.
Money (as debt) does occasionally go to the poor, however money (as wealth or capital) always stay with the rich. There is no "perfect answer" in "solving the economy" to work for the most people with the best fruition to society. Socialism is a good equalizer, however it fails to create anything other than itself, it has no "driving forward force" to mobilize wealth. Likewise, capitalism doesn't create wealth for very many people at all.
What we need is a new model that starts with maximizing fruition for the most people possible, even if "those with the most" have less than they do now, they would still have the most. They wouldn't lose the capital to create wealth or the wealth to create capital. Another part of a winning model is a banking institution which operates at minimal profit with "cheaper executives" that owes moral agency to anyone they do business with (because anyone who understands economics, ethics or math models also understands that average joe cannot be reasonably expected to have inside, specialist knowledge used to exploit them).
We need to care how wealth is created and care where it goes once it "leaves your hands", what kind of agendas it supports in the hands of those you give it to, and what other options exist.
The problem facing our nation is that many many people who work hard at jobs they have held for years are in a situation where they earn wages similar to teenagers working their first job and inmates on work release. With the same spending power in the economy. This has less to do with taxation and more to do with wages. If taxes were measured on "impact" to determine fairness, the 60% bottom would pay 5% of all monies earned. However, if wages were distributed more fairly then people would have the ability to get education, health care, and have the capital to attempt to make good choices with. Capitalism is not about "the right to choose", it is about the right to have "good choices to pick from" and if the system fails to provide then the system has failed; and it has.
Also, don't mistake me for a "socialist liberal" who thinks "democrats will ride in on the unicorn and save the day". I am able to look at things without biases (other than personal experience and the experience of many close to me, which i filter out up front and reinsert once i have multiple angles of logic). That is, my position against our current system is not an endorsement for any other system which could be "pinned" on someone who dislikes rampant poverty.
I just hope somewhere between insightful posts like Frogboy's opening post (and response to the video) will help smarten people up. The video is correct on many fronts, however when you look at Frog's experience, there is credibility there that cannot be denied. Likewise, many posts (from both sides) have good insight on the issues of wealth inequality.