Actually the poor tend to give a higher portion if their total wealth to charity than the rich.

The statistical data disagrees with your anecdotal evidence.

No

Mill very well expresses the essence of the matter in the form of a concept by characterising money as the medium of exchange. The essence of money is not, in the first place, that property is alienated in it, but that the mediating activity or movement, the human, social act by which man's products mutually complement one another, is estranged from man and becomes the attribute of money, a material thing outside man. Since man alienates this mediating activity itself, he is active here only as a man who has lost himself and is dehumanised; the relation itself between things, man's operation with them, becomes the operation of an entity outside man and above man. Owing to this alien mediator – instead of man himself being the mediator for man – man regards his will, his activity and his relation to other men as a power independent of him and them. His slavery, therefore, reaches its peak. It is clear that this mediator now becomes a real God, for the mediator is the real power over what it mediates to me. Its cult becomes an end in itself. Objects separated from this mediator have lost their value. Hence the objects only have value insofar as they represent the mediator, whereas originally it seemed that the mediator had value only insofar as it represented them. This reversal of the original relationship is inevitable. This mediator is therefore the lost, estranged essence of private property, private property which has become alienated, external to itself, just as it is the alienated species-activity of man, the externalised mediation between man's production and man's production. All the qualities which arise in the course of this activity are, therefore, transferred to this mediator. Hence man becomes the poorer as man, i.e., separated from this mediator, the richer this mediator becomes.

This is only tangibly related to your comment, but even before you get the unemphatic part, the regressive taxes alone set rich people apart from poor people. If you make enough money have to pay taxes at the lowest bracket in the US it's 10% taxes with minimum $22k a year income. That is $2200 a year, which is a crazy amount for them to be able afford when someone in the highest tax bracket is paying 37% and it doesn't start until $578k for a single filing. That's about $214k in taxes with about $364k left over to be as empathetic as they want to be with it. It would take the person who is paying 10% in taxes 16.5 years just to make what the person who is making half a million a year makes AFTER TAXES!

It's very hard for either group to be empathetic to the other, but for vastly different reasons.

I am very bad at public math if anyone sees a glaring issue.

Some 'people' aren't human and shouldn't be treated as such.