Thus, investors are taxed at low rates and CEOs receive high pay specifically because they deserve it. Thus, the facts are not contested by any side of this debate. The reality is that one must draw the line somewhere with respect to what sort of society one prefers to live in. The wealthy seek political power because they want to design a society in which they receive most of the benefits of opportunity while avoiding as much of the cost (taxation, regulation) as possible. Their ideal society probably already exists somewhere in the developing world, but alas American voters have sought to strike a more balanced approach to opportunity and cost. Many Americans -- some of them among the wealthy -- argue that too much wealth disparity is harmful to the country. First, as many Americans as possible should have the opportunity to succeed, something that does not come from a life of poverty, poor education, poor health, hunger and substandard living conditions. The social safety net, this side argues, should not be sacrificed so that the wealthy can have a little bit more of that wealth.

The wealthy who stand in opposition to such thinking do not hold a social safety net in as high a regard. They simply do not need it, and in many cases cannot understand why anybody would. In all likelihood, they have not been anywhere needing such a safety net for a long time, if ever. Their priorities, therefore, are elsewhere, and typically emphasize freedom of opportunity. They have the means to succeed, and with more opportunity...

Creating more investment opportunities is simply not important for those who have no money to invest. This is Domhoff's central point. Wealth disparity makes it more difficult for those who are not already wealthy to enjoy success. Those who are already wealthy ensure that government policy, especially tax policy, is suited to their needs. This allows them to enjoy almost all of the new wealth that is created. They might well be creating that wealth and therefore entitled to it, but other Americans see reduced opportunity to create wealth. The result is a society that has high wealth disparity, and ultimately one must come to a judgment about whether or not this is a good thing, and that judgment will probably guide one's views on taxation, government policy and the desired form of American society.
Works Cited:

Domhoff, B. (no date). Who rules America: Wealth, income and power. In possession of the author.

Buffett, W. (2011). Stop coddling the super-rich. New York Times. Retrieved September 22, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

Allen, F. (2012). Sarbanes-Oxley 10 years later: Boards are still the problem. Forbes. Retrieved September 22, 2012 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/29/sarbanes-oxley-10-years-later-boards-are-still-the-problem/