Here's the thing. If you make a distinction between wealth and degree of leaching, you also have to acknowledge that they are not orthogonal.

Among the poor, the leaches leach relatively little per person (because they're poor), and the non-leaches are often working their butts off and being well exploited for very little pay, in sectors where labor has virtually no negotiating power. Their work is largely for the benefit of the tiny class who wields control over the economy.

Meanwhile, if you look at the rich, you see three things. One is that you're looking at numbers so large that they can't be meaningfully connected to the efforts or merit of the individual. I have no beef with those tech billionaires who made their fortunes by disrupting and innovating, but the idea that a thousand dollars for a minute of their time is somehow merited and not leached is ridiculous. Second is that the vast majority of the very wealthy are not even like those self-made industrialists, but are just leveraging inherited wealth. If that's not leaching, then I don't know what is. Third is that if you look at how US Congress acts (and Princeton actually did a statistically study on this), it makes policy in line with what moneyed interests want over the interests of the people at large. So the rent seekers and manipulators of policy for personal benefit are almost exclusively moneyed interests.

Socialism is unique among political ideologies (with the possible exception of left anarchism) in that it has strains that honestly and credibly attempt to deal with both problems (inequality and leaching) simultaneously. Syndicalism is a system in which workplaces are democratized so that the people doing the work, rather than leaching off it, can determine their own policies and systems of compensation. It's a cool concept that despite seeing only seen limited application so far, shows a lot of promise.