The “Occupy Wall Street” protesters — also known as the “99 percent” — have struck a chord with at least a few members of an unexpected audience: America’s rich and privileged.

United under the banner “We are the 1 percent: We stand with the 99 percent,” a band of entrepreneurs, trust fund babies, professionals and inheritors has taken to the web to share their abhorrence of corporate greed and support for tax code changes that would see them pay a higher share of their considerable wealth.

Among other things, they’re posting their stories on a Tumblr page created by Wealth for the Common Good and Resource Generation, two groups dedicated to working for "fair taxation and just wealth distribution."

Some are probably not actually in the top 1 percent wealthwise — calculated at earning a yearly salary of more than $506,000, according toThe Wall Street Journal— but all are certainly well off and supportive of reforms that would narrow the widening gap between America's elite and poorest citizens.

Msnbc.com contacted some of the posters and others affiliated with the website’s creators to hear what they had to say.Here, in their own words, is what they told us:

Farhad A. Ebrahimi, 33, who shares his inherited wealth through a charity that he founded, says he attends the Occupy Boston protest every day. He has donated tents, helped with organizing, raised funds and written for the protesters' blog. He said that his inheritance put him squarely in the top 1 percent, plus he makes enough on investment income every year to be in the highest tax bracket. But he lives what he calls a “Spartan” life compared to other members of his family.

At the protest, he often wears a homemade T-shirt that reads: “I’m a member of the 1 percent and I fully support the 99 percent” on the front, and, “Tax me, I’m good for it,” on the back.

frapjap wrote: What I find odd is that the examples who want to be taxed more didn't earn their money, persay. They were born into a life of privilege.

frapjap wrote:However, the point I’m trying to make is that if the rich are taxed more, the idea of the “American Dream” would be a little tarnished. I’d be less inclined to be a large wage earner my earned money was stripped from me.

mattblancarte wrote:

frapjap wrote: What I find odd is that the examples who want to be taxed more didn't earn their money, persay. They were born into a life of privilege.

Wouldn't you expect this? Your following statements don't really expand on why you find this odd.

In my opinion, those who are born into wealth (that don't work to become successful, but simply manage their capital investments) would be more easily convinced that taxing at a higher rate is the sensible thing to do.

frapjap wrote:However, the point I’m trying to make is that if the rich are taxed more, the idea of the “American Dream” would be a little tarnished. I’d be less inclined to be a large wage earner my earned money was stripped from me.

Hmm... I'm sorry to say that this is a clear display of illogic. Taxes are almost at a historical low-point.

In the past, I haven't supported taxing high-income earners... However, the times we face require aggressive tax increase alongside cutting massive amounts of spending. Cutting defense spending by a huge margin would be a great place to start.

In regards to hypothetical motivations to become a large "wage earner," I think you'll find that most people that earn high incomes will scrape and claw regardless of the taxing scenario.

Consider the fact that the top federal income tax rate is 40% right now. There have been times in the 20th century where it has been as high as 94%, if not higher. Just something to ponder.

IBCoupe wrote:There's something to the argument that the high tax rates of old aren't the rates of today. For example, a 94% tax rate on income over $350,000 (1955 or so) is roughly equivalent to a 94% tax rate on income over $3,000,000 (2010).

There's a legitimate gripe that the arrangement of the brackets themselves have not kept up with inflation. In this view, the lowering of tax rates has really served to keep all of OUR taxes relatively stable while handing a huge tax break to the super-wealthy.

That's not an argument against raising rates as much as I think it is an argument in favor of establishing new brackets, or shifting the current ones upward.