In the same week that a Fortune magazine cover story critiques those who wish to bash the rich, Newsweek features a commentary from money manager Foster Friess titled “More Fat Cats, Please!”

What do wealthy people do with their money? They can only buy so many cars, houses, and steak dinners. So we either give it away or invest it. What the “supposed 99 percent” don’t realize is that they are better off if there are more fat cats, not less.

David Koch gave $100 million for cancer research at MIT. Bill Gates gave more than $28 billion to promote global health, saving 5.8 million lives in Africa alone. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gave $100 million to revitalize public education in New Jersey. Go to Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, or any college and you’ll see libraries, dormitories, and a lot of buildings that were a result of the generosity of fat cats.

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs did not start out wealthy and actually added to income inequality, but we all benefit from their creative effort. They demonstrate that social mobility is a more important goal. Wealth is the ultimate panacea to poverty.

Our society would be a lot better off if everybody’s tax rates were lowered. Yet the rich people I know would be willing to pay more in taxes if they felt that it was good for our country.

The trouble is not just that it enlarges government; it also creates divisiveness. For example, if you want to buy a Cadillac and I want to buy a Ford, we go to our respective dealers and we’re both happy. But if the government starts issuing automobiles, suddenly you and I become political enemies over how we position our favorite car. We have so many government activities that divide us. If it were left to the private sector, people would not have those animosities.