The solution? Lower taxes or eliminate them for all and greatly reduce government spending. Making it open and above board that everyone is playing with the same rules and getting the same benefits. The more regulation people attempt to put up the greater it tends to benefit the big corps/the rich for they basically write the rules. Making it hard to compete with them, and for them to gain even more benefit at the expense of the common man. Just look at the bailouts; private banks were bailed out by every citizen. They have no more reason to be bailed out than McDonalds' does. The people feel justifiably upset about the 1% on those terms; however, many, especially on the left, push for policies that just worsen their plight.
This whole spiel the left love to play about how the Rs help the 1% is inane - the Ds do it just as much if not more. At the moment, people have borrowed to their gils and it is simply an inevitability that they will have to go through some pain. The 'austerity measures' are the only real ways of getting back to real wealth. Borrowing and borrowing more money on top of that is a sure-fire way to bring the whole ship down. If you have debt, you can't keep charging your credit card. You have to start saving and cut spending, and that may hurt but that is the only way. You have to get back to reality eventually; people have to be responsible. The more you think the government can pay for you the worse off you are: they will tax you more to cover the costs of more programs and departments and when they run short they'll print money which effectively is another hidden tax which affects your purchasing power - meaning you will not be able to buy the same amount of milk for the same price (inflation). And worse, as tajrish touches on, government is a notoriously bad spender and rising costs are almost guaranteed - which means even less money for the ordinary man. This is just a cycle of welfare and poverty.
If people keep getting richer and they spend less of that as a proportion on investing then that is their initiative. But it is to their detriment; other people will take up the slack in new and evolving markets and they will get the benefits/profits instead.
The real issue is that the game is fixed and that is why there is an element of unfairness. Otherwise, if all else were equal, it is nobody's business that one person makes much more than they do. That person is meeting the need and/or want of the rest of society to the point that they can afford to live luxuriously. The benefit of that is that such a person will undoubtedly be involved in some venture which employs other people and in that sense helps the economy. These people are doing a good thing in the end, no matter how frivolous people want to paint them. In the end, unless coerced with government force, it is simply a person meeting the demands of other people in society. They don't need to pay their "fair share" as they already are by providing goods and services and, consequently, jobs.