Conservative philosopher John Locke's Second Treatise, ended with the following conclusion.
"Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed."For perspective, if you had $1,000,000 you could spend $40,000 each year for the next 25 years and not run out of money. If you invested the million at only 3 or 4 percent return you could comfortably live out the entire lifetime of the average American. Is $90 million in 12 months, the portion Glenn Beck, carved to himself, or Limbaugh's $66 million, or Hannity's $30 million, or Stewart's $16 million too much? If so, I agree with Locke, "it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed."
I'm not saying they should redistribute their wealth through forced taxation. However they have more than they could ever make use of. They should choose their own way to share the wealth. With so many in America doing without, what goodness is served by the wealthy thriving among paupers?