What do the social classes owe one another? (Economic Philosophy)

Income inequality has become a prime concern for modern economists like Timothy Noah and Joseph Stiglitz, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. This also was one of the main reasons Barack Obama coasted to a second term as president. By attributing former president Bush and the Republican congress's economic policies to producing wealth only for the top income earners, Obama effectively disarmed the Republican claim that their policies would grow the economy.

Or did he?

Obama's claim is that the wealthy have a duty to pay any earnings above what is deemed necessary for a decent standard of living to those who lack a comfortable standard of living. He believes that the social classes owe each other the fruits of their labor. Obama believes that the poor and the middle class already give up their labor for the rich, so naturally the rich should be compelled to give more because they are "free riding" of the labor of the working peoples.

As the President put it, we are our brothers keepers. We exist for the service of one another, helping one another is how we get help from others. Success then is only the result of the toil of others and the wealth from this success should go to the person who produced it. Obama's maligned statement of "you didn't build that" pretty much sums it up.

There is an opposing view on the legitimacy of wealth for on one's own sake, and it is best articulated by the book What the Social Classes Owe to Each Other by William Graham Sumner (from which this post got its name). This book can best be described as economic moral philosophy: what system of wealth distribution should we follow? Sumner proposes the opposite system the president does. He says all we owe anybody who we do not want to give something to  is to leave them alone. That is not to desire taking their wealth by the use of force, whether by citizen or government. Wealth is made by the individual that chooses to work hard and sacrifice some of their earnings today (capital) to invest in a greater future. So they choosing whether or not to make more money are solely responsible for whatever wealth they gain or lose in that transaction. Society should not aid him if he fails, nor punish him if he succeeds, and vice-versa. Minding ones own business means that the only interference with wealth is when that wealth is not made voluntarily by the individual and involves force and/or fraud. So he would argue Bush and the Republican Party's policies even though they made the rich richer are not immoral and subject to government since inequality not stemming from force is legitimate.

Now people like Obama also oppose wealth through fraud. He just believes that physical harm by theft or assault is not the only form of harm in society. Massive wealth accumulation at the top of the income scale also hurts others because it robs others the necessary income to meet their desires for education, transportation, housing, etc. So, government interference with wealth made by nonviolent means is legitimate because wealth not shared harms people by preventing them access to "necessary" goods and services.

In summary, is the non-violent individual responsible for their own success and failure in life or must society take responsibility for social problems like inequality thorough government action? Whatever the answer voters chose to make one house of congress and the white-house populated by these two opposing ideas.