There has been a lot of discussion on here about wealth, who has it, how it's created, whether it should be spread around and how, etc.

One point I haven't see addressed directly is how the very wealthy got that way.

I don't begrudge the entrepreneur who works long hours, has good ideas, manages well and makes a pile of money. But it seems to me that a lot of wealth is generated by and for those who are already wealthy, by manipulating the system in one way or another.

For example: a CEO gets in that position via old-boys networking, cronyism, bribery, or whatever, and proceeds to vote (or have themselves voted) huge salaries and bonuses - do they deserve that wealth? A company that takes advantage of public need/want, gullibility, or price-fixing - do their boards or executives or shareholders really deserve that wealth?

Is it not reasonable to expect that such wealth, gained by means that are not always ethical or moral, be "distributed" somewhat by taxation?

Drug kingpins make a lot of money, but I don't think anyone (other than the kingpins) would object to having their assets seized upon proof of guilt, and redistributed into government coffers.

I guess what I am saying is that unbridled capitalism would work perfectly if everyone involved were 100% moral and ethical, but since that's not and never will be the case, the wealthy should contribute a goodly share to the society of which they are a part.