Rich individuals don't have an "obligation" to "encourage" poor people, and it is to some degree erroneous to portray the circumstance thusly.
A general public or government may have (and, I think, has) an obligation to see that it gives the most astounding achievable insignificant way of life for all nationals.
This requires cash.
The main route for a general public or government to get cash is to force imposes on its nationals.
Legitimately connected, the well off would settle more in government expenses than poor people - not on the grounds that they are rich, but rather in light of the fact that appropriate charges would take from every citizen a similar extent of their cash. The issue is, how is a duty "legitimately" connected?
To my psyche, an assessment that charges everybody at a similar rate, without any findings or exclusions or credits, is the most attractive. Say, 20%. Everybody pays 20% of their salary to the administration (perhaps give everybody an underlying reasoning of $10,000 per individual, and expense everything over that underlying conclusion). Somebody who wins $2 million every year will cover $400,000 in government expenses, and a man who acquires $40,000 every year will pay $8,000. Each pays a similar rate.
(I'm wagering the person who acquires $2 million is better prepared to make good on his government obligations than the person who wins $40,000.)
Consequently, the legislature furnishes every citizen and their families with a similar dimension of social administrations - human services, police/fire security, and so on.
On the off chance that a subject doesn't care for such a framework, they are free (in any event under our arrangement of government) to either leave the nation or work to change the framework.