The poor are not poor because Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have too much money. The poor are poor because, mostly, they aren't working (or are not working much), or because they lack the skills to move up the ladder, or because they live in an area where opportunity is limited, and haven't mustered the gumption to move, or sometimes because of illness or disability. All of these things are serious problems.
That said, America today spends vast sums to provide basic income support. The poor in America, excepting the substance abuse and mental illness cohort, live relatively well by any historical or international standard. That means that we are deep into moral hazard territory. Increased income distribution simply lessens the incentive to work, or upgrade skills, or move. It makes people more comfortable in dependency, and tends to perpetuate and exacerbate the problem.
So how can we reduce the wealth differential? One of the simplest methods would be to shift Social Security to a fully funded basis to generate wealth creation among the currently non-saving demographic. Another would be to effect real school choice to allow the children of the poor an escape hatch out of too-often dysfunctional public school systems. Another would be to reduce taxes and regulation to encourage small business formation. Another would be to condition receipt of benefits on work effort. Yet another would be to encourage and support family formation, as opposed to normalizing illegitimacy and single parenthood. The list goes on.
The left, of course, generally opposes the constructive methods and prefers the counterproductive methods. If I were a cynic, I would suspect that their objectives have less to do with reducing inequalities of wealth and more to do with tearing down a resented business class while consolidating government control in an effectively one-party system.
That’s increased income REdistribution, but you already knew that.
These are excellent points; but there are others that impact on the discussion that fall completely outside them (or could be "stealthily hidden in one) — let us consider entry level Computer Science jobs: most postings require at least 2 years experience with the particular software/OS/tools being used… I've seen even 5 years required for an entry level job.
Given that many graduates leave college with loads of debt, they're in a big pickle: they need experience to get a job in the field, but they need a job in the field to get experience. I've heard that this is the result of companies wanting to get more H1B-visas/foreign-hires, which they then can use to (a) write off taxes, and/or (b) not pay the actual worth/salary of the position.