You might want to check out this column by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post respecting myths about income inequality. His basic point is that the poor aren’t poor because the rich are rich.
I think that depends a bit on how you define “rich” and “poor”. If you define rich as anybody with a household income over $250,000, as the Obama administration seems to do, and poor as anybody who has a lower income than that, as many people seem to do (it’s the only way you could evoke sympathy for the financial plight of a married couple who are both Chicago Public School high school teachers, for example), I think there’s a case to be made.
As I’ve said any number of times before, I reserve the term “rich” for what’s called the “ultra-rich”—individuals in the top .1% of income earners and “poor” for those in the bottom quintile of income earners. I don’t honestly believe that using those definitions the poor are poor because the rich are rich. I think those rich are rich because they’re the few who are in the “long tail” of income earners and those poor are poor because they’re immigrants without working skills, black, disabled, and so on.