I am opposed to all forms of unjust extraction, whether that's the rich ripping off other people and taking money they are not owed, to the poor feeling entitled to the money of the rich for the singular reason that they're poor. It is unjust for the rich to engage in theft and usury, even if done for the greater good (consequentialism). It is unjust for the poor to engage in theft or feel entitled to the money of the rich simply because they are poor and that X's poverty somehow automatically entitles X to Y's money. Charity is possible, but charity by definition is not something someone is entitled to, even if it is good to practice it. Indeed, a culture of charity is healthier because it simultaneously requires engagement of the giver with the needs of the receiver and does not insult the dignity of either party by maintaining it as an act of free giving and free receiving instead of institutionalizing a cold, obfuscating, and bureaucratically-managed dependence.
Some argue that b/c the rich benefit unjustly from our money, we are, as an act of justice, entitled to extract their wealth. The problem with that position is that instead of addressing the problem, it normalizes the pathologically unjust exploitation of the rich. It gives the rich even more incentive to pillage b/c of the categorical levying taxes on wealth. It erodes respect for ownership and property, things that are necessary for the good of human beings and the maintenance of social order (eminent domain has a place, but I'm talking about the common case, and even then, compensation is due). It legitimizes greed. It normalizes theft through taxes since taxation that goes beyond covering the administrative costs of the state and the financing of necessary public services is unjust. The net effect is that the rich, along with the gov't they control, become virtual slave owners on whose graces the poor are made dependent (no doubt, this is useful during elections). The middle class is in effect sandwiched between an exploitative upper class and a lower class beholden to the rich, encouraging animosity toward the middle class from both ends. That the government controls taxation does not mean all that much when the rich have significant sway over the government. The tax revenue in such situations is more likely to be used to fund things that benefit the rich, such as a public education that conforms to the designs of the rich.
One way to counter the excessive accumulation of wealthy is to require companies to make workers stakeholders in the companies they work for. What percentage they should own I don't know, but enough to be able to significantly influence things like the compensation a CEO receives. This would eliminate the need for unions as something distinct from companies since all parties have skin in the same game.
Other ways are the elimination of corporate subsidies that create monopolies and a subsidiarist approach to the distribution of political power, making it difficult for the rich to maintain power over its diffuse allocation.
It is a mistake to think that state socialism is the solution to state capitalism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin and reinforce one another until they are effectively indistinguishable.