"Venom"? Where is any 'venom' in the article? No one is suggesting the 'rich' should not BE rich. They can drive Mercedes and fly on private jets and have 3-4 homes. They can buy cases of expensive wine...fine! Just require them to support the economy in some equitable ratio to their income.
The article shows how VERY unbalanced the income brackets are, and how the gap between rich and 'barely getting by' is growing.

The rich are using some of their riches to further tilt the playing field and keep far more of their riches than is fair & reasonable....to the point of paying little or no taxes. *I* don't have disposable income to hide in the Cayman Islands...and I have never even owned a 'new' car.

The recent "Citizens United" ruling in the court now allows a 'corporation'...meaning one or more corporate executives... to act as an 'individual' and spend inordinate amounts MORE money electing legislators that act as little more than 'voting lobbyists' for corporate interests!..(which means fewer relevant regulations...or laws with loopholes they can drive a Mercedes thru!)

Let them be rich...if they can create wealth, they should get to play with it...but do NOT tell me they they generously create jobs! They try to run with as few lower-level blue-collar jobs as possible...with the least unionization and the lowest wages. They move what production facilities they can to Asia or Mexico and tie our entire economy to counties whose basic attitude towards "human rights" we don't approve of. This system makes the 'very' rich into the SUPER rich...and I suppose that can be a pretty heady feeling.

Mother Jones has an agenda... and it does promote the facts that support that agenda.... but that doesn't mean they are lying...or even inaccurate. We should be careful of what meaning we take from those statistics, but there is sure enough data there to make clear that someone is getting a bigger piece of the pie than is reasonable.....

but...I know.. WE'LL get "Pie in the sky, by-and-by"