No society that has existed could every find an answer to the "concentration of wealth". Even countries that are heavily socialized or communist ended up with an aristocracy that held the majority of the wealth.
Your post starts out with a good point, but unfortunately then goes on just to prove my post.
In our case the government doesn't have any money. It creates a budget, then tasks the IRS (due to constitutional conflict) to collect money to impliment that budget.
We live in a capitalist society. Our country is falling apart trying to "redistribute" from the concentrations you describe to the masses. In this particular country, being an aristocrat doesn't by default give you power that you might acquire in more hybrid states such as Russia. Politicians are a different breed, but fortunately for us there are only a limited number of them.
Class warfare is class warfare. I agree that you can't take an even approach to every situation, but we are talking about taxes. I just think its unfair to unilaterally declare someone more liable for the expenses of the country than someone else. Charity should never be mandatory. Charity by gunpoint is simply wrong. And don't think my analogy doesn't fit. If Bill Gates decided that he was going to pay the same tax rate percentage as someone making 50K a year, he would go to jail for tax evasion. Theres your gun.
So, I'll address the first good point you started out with (I see no reason to expected repeating the point you still missed would help).
Concentration of wealth and power - they generally go together - is a problem in any society.
You mention no one has dealt well with them.
And surely, there's some truth to that - but some have dealt far better.
Who has dealt especially well, putting aside primitive societies?
Well, the US has made *vast* improvements - eliminating many of the symptoms and reducing others - including slavery, child labor, education, political power (the vote not even just for property owners as it was at the start of the country, but for most of the population), lack of medical care, labor organization, and more.
And the progressive era, especially starting with FDR, saw a big *reduction* in the concentration of wealth. In the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's.
And this was not at the expense of our nation becoming some tyranny, at the expense of our becoming impoverished with a weak economy - quite the contrary.
But did you learn from history here? No.
Another society that has done much better with the issue is the Scandanavian culture - where much more liberal policies have worked very well.
But you demand the things that do worse.
You continue to spout ideology about what means seem fair to you, ignoring the disaster that comes from them.
In that, you resemble the communists quite a bit as they insisted on the rightness of their means, and ignore the results.