I have a lot of objections to the super-rich, and most of them, from a policy perspective, have to do with the concentration of power. As virtually no one would deny, money is power, and concentrating money in the hands of the few is thus fundamentally anti-democratic.
But from a philosophical perspective, my objection to the superrich is actually a bit more nuanced. Philosophically, I don't have a problem with individuals who earn a large amount of money: they've excelled at something, and deserve to keep whatever they've got (within limits, since all huge earnings only take place by leveraging social infrastructure). What I really object to is actually not earned wealth, so much as unearned wealth -- whether of the landed aristocratic sort, or of the bourgeois sort.
If we had a radical inheritence tax, I'd be much more inclined to let current wage earners keep much more of their income. If by their talents certain individuals earn large sums, and they then choose to exercise those talents in the political arena, then that's fine -- I've got no objections to the Ross Perots or the Mikhail Khordokhovskys.
What I object to, however, are the cosseted children of the superrich. (A small precaution: this attitude probably reflects bad experiences I had in prep school with the dipshit children of the superrich who, without the slightest sense of irony or self-awareness, honestly believed they were entitled to their parents' money; this attitude struck me as exactly identical to that of "welfare queens" who believe they are entitled to the state's money: what the F have either done, personally, to earn this entitlement?)
There's actually solid philosophical grounding for this attitude, I might add. If you read John Locke's Second Treatise on Government (the founding text of modern liberalism), Locke explains that the reason people have the "right" to property is that they have "commingled their Labour with it"; in other words, that they have invested part of their own personal being in the property. Locke makes this argument to set up the point that for the government (or anyone else) to expropriate a person's property is essentially to rob that person of part of their own personage. This is to me a compelling argument.
But no argument about "the labor invested in acquired property" applies to inherited wealth. The children of the rich have invested exactly nothing of their labor in whatever wealth they inherit. They simply have got it by a fluke of law.
Any meritocrat, and any democrat, thus ought to object to inherited wealth. This principle explains why I believe, essentially, in a confiscatory inheritence tax (a position, I should perhaps disclose, not without considerable negative personal ramifications). A confiscatory inheritence tax is the natural corrolary of a belief in meritocracy: every individual must earn his or her own way; the fact that your father (or more rarely, mother) earned a huge amount should have minimal bearing on your economic options and opportunities.