Richistan. Taking too much from the company store.

Warren Buffett is documented as the third richest man in the world. On an income of $46 million he is taxed at a rate of 17.7 percent. His secretary, who earns $60,000 annually, is taxed at a rate of 30 percent.

Who's complaining about this? Warren Buffett.

Even he and people like Bill Gates can recognize that such a tax system and such a misalignment of wealth in a developed country like the United States is a recipe for disaster.

Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world’s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: “I’m making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.”

None of this is passing without notice. As the gap between the rich and the poor widens, the jungle is beginning to get a little noisy, and as the rich get very rich, it is becoming obvious that they are eating a hole in the all important middle class and driving the poor further down the human scale of mere existence.

Defenders of low tax for the very rich point to the theory of trickledown economics - the spending power of the rich benefiting the poor. But while the super-rich have boomed, the earning power of the average and poor citizen has not nearly matched the performance of the elite. In 2005 the top one per cent of earners in the US gained 14 per cent in income in real terms, while the rest of the country gained less than one per cent. The situation is especially bad for the severely poor - those living at half the poverty level - whose numbers are at a 32-year high. The rich are getting richer but are not bringing everyone else with them. 'If you look at the impact of the last 20 years it seems pretty clear that trickledown just does not work,' said Paul Buchheit, economics professor at Chicago's Harold Washington College.

It doesn't take a genius to build a quick picture of how the system is working in favour of the rich. The middle class is literally awash in debt. And for every credit card purchase which will not be paid off within 30 days, some bank, or hedge fund manager drags in more money than the value of the original purchase - for doing virtually nothing.

A common but misplaced assumption is that the growth in debt among middle-income families — those with incomes roughly between $25,000 to $70,000 a year — is the result of over-consumption through increased credit card debt. Rather, growth in debt is primarily due to heavier borrowing for investments in homes or education, both of which saw dramatic price increases in recent years. The cost of a college education, for example, grew by 24.6% between 2001 and 2004, after adjusting for inflation.

Then we have the George W. Bush system of taxation which, as anyone with a functioning synapse can see, will never favour those without pre-exisiting bags of money. Banks have now developed reputations which rival that of used-car dealers. A customer walks out the door knowing he/she has been stiffed.

And while the wealthy get richer and spend their money on items not generally considered useful for the majority of working people, those who are attempting to buy the staples of life in a developed country, (a home; childrens' education; a chance to retire eating something other than cat food}, spend more than they earn. The beneficiaries of that spending are the same wealthy few who created the situation for the middle-class in the first place.

Declare bankruptcy? Not in the US. The banks, whose earnings are going though the financial roof, pushed for legislation which put a crimp on that type of consumer protection. If you owe, you pay - for the rest of your life, if necessary.

What everyone seems to be missing is that it cannot last. The death of the middle-class, as Warren Buffett is well aware, means the death of the wealthy. If the middle-class, enmasse, becomes so overwhelmed in debt they will eventually just stop paying. Then the yachts, the mega-mansions and the $1000 omelettes will also end. And with the end of those luxuries will end the economy generated by those items. The rich will lose their goodies and those who provide them will lose their jobs.

It will be the end of the second Gilded Age. It will also spell the death of the conservative movement, but not without taking the entire economy with it.