there is a lot wrong with what you're saying... But I'll simplify it all right down to this:
If the laborer is only making a third of what they produce, and your capitalist villains 'add no real value' nor are needed, like you seem to believe... Then why doesn't the laborer always just smarten up and be his own goose to lay the Golden egg and reap 100% of the benefits instead of your alleged 30% (as if the capitalist gets the other 70%, which would be a ridiculous claim, and one only someone who has never run a business would make).
In a free society, which we aren't fully, but relatively so -- the laborer has ample opportunity to start his own venture and compete with his current/former employer directly. Many of these villain capitalists started off as wage-earners themselves.
The difference between you and me? You want to get rid of the capitalists and just have labor. I want to make more capitalists. I want as many capitalists as possible, and to minimize the amount of laborers.
You don't do that by punishing capital. By punishing capital, and subsidizing labor, you make less capitalists, and more labor. Think about this for a second... You're allowing capital to he concentrated even further, and reducing capital competition for labor, and making labor more numerous to be in competition with itself, instead. This means less leverage for laborers, and more for the fewer capitalists.
That's a recipe for the exact opposite of your end goal. Use your noodle here, bud.