I cannot get to the site right now but the idea that rich people somehow earn their riches all on their lonesome is an absurdity that right wingnuts must believe as someday they too may hit the lottery, or more likely daddy and mommy will help them. But does anyone think the rich exist in a vacuum, they exist in a social network that provides for those riches and their use of the infrastructure that provides for them is immense. Think for a moment on that and then read Simon's idea noted below.
"The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer
If you can be rich then by essentially being born in the right place on the map, why are more people not rich?