I agree with Sherman's contention that the gap between rich and poor won't be made narrower by the rich wanting to see themselves as socially responsible actors. On the other hand, I agree with Veblen when he said that the infusion of more meritocracy into the world of the elites brought about by the demands of modern means of production is a good thing. It tends to weaken the myth of class and breeding that has supported the gangs of aristocracy.
The proposal to tar and feather the wealthy to repair extreme inequality runs into the problem that capitalism is a system of income inequality. That is how it works. To make the system less unfair is why we have progressive taxation along with civil, labor, and environmental laws. Some countries have this thing called an industrial policy where desirable skill sets are identified and plans made to develop them through education and benefit programs. So we have the instruments to make the share of prosperity much less unequal in our hands. No need to shop for pitchforks.
The fundamental problem is that people have sharply different opinions about what conditions generate the wealth that would be shared. The Trump voter who doesn't care if the rich get richer thinks that is a necessary condition to his or her getting the trickle but consider many entitlements and jobs taken by immigrants to be coming out of their bank account.The unTrump voter has a different theory of prosperity. The arguments on many sides, many sides about free trade rotate on the question of whether restricting it would increase or decrease the wealth of the nation.
We are all economists now.... Damn it, here comes some more water: Back to the kayak....