there is a difference between vulture capitalism and venture capitalism.
and it's not a zero sum game. the rich and wealthy do not do worse if the working poor or middle class do better. if the working poor and middle class do better, so do the uber wealthy. aggregate demand is the name of the game.
my pa-in-law is a millionaire many times over, and i stand to take over much of his empire once he gets tired of it and i am ready for such a task (his daughters and son do not want to run his business). but he treats his employees right.
he pays them a very fair wage and provides health insurance. he gives them an annual bonus every year depending on how well run the apartment complex is. he even pays some for college for a few of his employees.
i hire several people to help with my treadmills several times a year, i don't exploit anyone. i try my best to help them, not scalp them to put a buck in my own pocket.
capitalism is ideal, especially if you have mechanisms in place to ensure that people behave ideally.
And that's why capitalism is capitalism, because you're free to some degree in how you want to operate a business, which includes employee compensation. So of course there are different "forms" of capitalism. That's what capitalism is supposed to be, so what is your point?
So, when you said "I know what I pay in taxes and I know how Romney accumulated his wealth on the backs of hard working, middle class folk. It's well documented". - you infer that capitalism operated in a certain fashion is to be despised, in the sense that, if it makes money from other's efforts, without "fair" compensation, it's a terrible thing.
If a employee who assembles cardboard boxes, is making $500 worth of boxes an hour, but is only being payed $10 an hour, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, if the employee has willingly agreed to do the job. Let's just make things simple and say that, the employee could make the boxes for himself and therefore make more money for himself, instead of working for the company. That's not the business owners fault, that's just the stupidity of the employee making the boxes (if he is in fact capable of employing himself with his own skill set).
Who are you to determine how, what, or who is compensated "fairly"? If you own a business, you make an offer to a potential/current employee, and they either accept it, or decline & look elsewhere. Employment itself is a form of capitalism in the very same sense for both the employer and employee. If either party doesn't accept the "terms", then you decline on an agreement. It's quiet simple.