"We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true," said Jeremy Hobbs, an executive director at Oxfam.

"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

"In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left."

Most of the 100 richest people do not live in the United States, but 15 out of the top 26 do.So it only makes sense that the movement toward reducing inequality starts here.

The Haves and the Have-mores

You may have heard how the rich pay more federal income taxes than the poor (as if this is some sort of a crime), while tens of millions of working poor are using government benefits (as if this is also some sort of crime).

But you probably haven't heard about how 2,400 millionaires pocketed unemployment benefits in 2009.

“Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending,” U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. “Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt.”

For once I can't argue with a conservative Republican.

Of course federal income taxes are just one tax.

Social Security taxes are totally regressive, only taxing the first $100k or so of income. Often this is the major tax for the working poor.

And then there is the fact that tax breaks overwhelming benefit the wealth, not the poor.

But the real trick is when you factor in all of the taxes.

The fact is that nearly every state and local tax system takes a much greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from the wealthy. This “tax the poor” strategy is problematic because hiking taxes on low-income families pushes them further into poverty and increases the likelihood that they will need to rely on safety net programs. From a state budgeting perspective, this “soak the poor” strategy also doesn’t yield much revenue compared to modest taxes on the rich. It’s no wonder that so many states with regressive tax structures are facing long-term structural budget deficits. They‘re continually imposing higher taxes on people without much money.

In states like Florida the top 1% pay a tax rate of 2.1% while the bottom 20% pay a tax rate of 13.5%. Texas is 3% and 12.2% respectively.But the worst state is surprisingly Washington state where the richest 1% pay a 2.6% tax rate, while the poorest 20% pay 17% in taxes.Only in the District of Columbia do the rich pay more in local taxes than the poor.