The wealthy cannot obtain an increasing % of the wealth and income without taking it from the workers. Who also happen to be the people whose money is used to keep these companies afloat. People ask, "what need do you have for firearms," when they don't cause violence. Poverty, however, does cause violence and yet no one asks the top 1% or the top 0.1% what need do they have for 8 and 9 figure annual salaries? What need does the average corporate executive (excluding small business) have to justify cutting wages, laying off workers and outsourcing jobs, at the expense of the American economy, so they can increase their wages to a ratio of 380:1 on average for CEOs. (Income inequality is at it's highest in recorded american history, with 1929 coming in second) Why are we giving these people tax breaks both individually and to the corporations when they do nothing but take from the economy? The American production worker's productivity growth rate increased 11 fold in comparison to the increase in their wages from 1979 to 2011. The American worker is producing more and getting paid less for it. And yes, if it continues to happen, one of two things will happen; the economy will collapse as it did in 1929 or there will be armed revolt against the corporations due to repeated and persistent abuses against the workers by the management as was the case in the battle of Blair mountain. You should have to work 80hrs/week just to gape to escape abject poverty because the management would rather pay themselves more money at your expense.

I doubt many people have read the Wealth of Nations. The book that defined modern economics. But let me share a piece of the book. 

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" — Adam Smith.