First, I think the premise is flawed...that being that we should punish those who have more. Secondly, let's be serious...the Democrats are just as much in the tank for big business and the uber-rich as the Republicans are. Both parties cater to the powerful. Those would be people that have a boatload of money, by the way.
Now, is there a difference? Yes. I'm sure some Republicans support the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" out of personal gain or the gain of some of their supporters. Then again, some Democrats support increased social spending for the same reason. The point is, most Republicans (and Democrats) don't support/oppose policies for these reasons. They take policy positions based on what they think the solutions to problems are (of course, youy've already demonstrated you're not interested in a policy discussion, but I digress).
What we really have is a philosophical difference here between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that the "rich" should be taxed at higher rates because it brings in more tax revenue, makes outcomes more "fair," and because frankly...the rich can afford it--the poor cannot.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that higher taxes depress economic activity. Why? Because people in the upper income bracket are the ones who create jobs both directly and indirectly. They buy more goods and services, which indirectly creates jobs. They also may own small businesses which can directly create jobs. When we punish the rich, we depress economic activity. Taxation affects behavior, after all.
What Democrats refuse to understand is that tax revenue is never "zero sum." That is, we don't get a set amount of revenue from a tax hike, because the tax base can shrink. The same applies to tax cuts. Democrats often point out how much tax cuts "cost." Obviously, they don't "cost" anything because the money is not the government's to begin with....but beyond that, tax cuts (done correctly) can stimulate economic activity and thereby grow the tax base---resulting in more revenue.
The conservative position on taxes has been proven correct 3 times in the last 50 years. Kennedy signed off on lowering the top bracket from 90+ percent to around 75 percent. Revenue went up as the economy expanded. Reagan signed off on across the board tax cuts, but focused a lot of it on the top bracket, which went from 75 percent to 28 percent. The result? The economy boomed, and federal revenues doubled over 8 years. George W. Bush pushed for a won an historic tax cut in 2001 and additional tax cuts in 2003. The result? The economy expanded and federal revenue reached a record high in the middle of his Presidency. One can't argue with something that has worked 3 times. Well, liberals do argue, but it's a bit tiresome at this point.
Of course, what any good Democrat like yourself will point out is that deficits increased dramatically under Reagan and Bush 43. That's correct, but the problem was never revenue. The problem was spending. One can't argue that the Bush Tax cuts (and Reagan cuts) "added to" or "created" the deficit. Once one looks at what revenue actually was, the problem is obvious: Congress spending money like it was in a game of monopoly, drinking shots of Jack all the while. Republicans were just as guilty of this in 2001-2006, which is why they got tossed.