The thing about Batman that you need to remember is that he’s been around since the 1930s. Many facets of the character have been explored, including this one. Bruce Wayne has, on multiple occasions, argued for and created social programs for the poor. That is something he has done in many comics.
That said, he hasn’t argued for higher taxation on the rich. There’s a few reasons for this, the chief among them being the unquestioned omnipresent capitalist dogma that informs a lot of media. Though I’d add that the idea of wealth redistribution is kind of incompatible with the idea of Batman. He’s a deeply psychologically motivated character. His war on crime is largely personal. As his vigilantism is enabled by his wealth, it makes sense that he would favour philanthropy. He wants to be the agent of change in ‘his’ city. Broadly speaking, that might make him ineffective but I don’t think it makes him bad. I think it’s part of what makes him an interesting character.
How’d they do that?