Put simply, you don't create a reasonable middle class income for the poor by impoverishing the middle classes - you do it by taxing and regulating the rich, because they own the bulk of the wealth.
While I'm sure some rich conservatives enjoy the divide-and-rule prospect of trying to set the poor, the unemployed and the middle classes fighting each other for scraps like crabs in a bucket, the point of progressive policy is to ensure that social investment is substantial and significant.
Scraps from the table aren't an acceptable substitute for that.
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=3136587&orden=0
suggests that Spain's top 1% have a similar order of the national wealth (20%) to those in Anglo countries.
Better general ways would be:
(a) location benefit levy - a tax on land rental values which is essentially a tax on the privileged use of the land commons;
(b) a levy on gross revenues from intellectual property rights - ie a tax on privileged use of the 'creative commons' of knowledge;
(c) a limited liability levy on gross corporate revenues - limited liability is another untaxed privilege;
(d) levies on use of non-renewables - another commons - and so on.
Then I would get rid of all other taxes except levies on earned income aimed at funding education and healthcare.
There is no chance of doing this via the State, since it the privileged turkeys who manage and own the country would not enact Christmas.
But I think in the emerging networked society and economy such an architecture could well evolve. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
