Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.
Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's been pointed out by more then just a hand full that Pinkety cherry picked his evidence for his theories.
On top of that, those whom always rail against income inequality tend to never remove the outliners in the data (those at the very very top who make up .01% but significantly skew the means) and do not give age the proper weight when looking at income distributions.
For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives. There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored.
Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else. There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential.
Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet. This over emphasis by Millennials and Gen Zs on income inequality is very likely due to the excessive college debt they hold that was brought onto them by the false premise that in order to be successful one needed to go to college. This in course increased college admissions (demand) faster then supply could increase and, combined with easy to get loans, increased the prices significantly, increasing debt. Last, and unfortunately, there is only a finite percentage of jobs in the real world that require college degrees, leaving many with jobs that pay too little to pay off the debt and whom have no real skills to work in areas that pay well but require different skill sets then what one would learn in a traditional college.
Those in the trades are actually doing well, but the stigma of being a tradesman is still prevalent and many trades people are looked down upon by college educated individuals, which I find rather disheartening.
(If you ever do any work in construction, you will find out that the building science that goes into construction is far more complicated that what it is given credit for. I recently had a fairly in depth conversation with a client about insulating baring masonry walls and how you need to adjust methods after taking into account masonry materials and zone location.)
But anyway, getting back to the whole income inequality issue, maybe we are approaching the edge of the cliff. I was listening to Chris Hedges today talk about the USA in the age of Trump. Now he is a progressive liberal whom (I think) leans more socialist then capitalist and is an obvious Trump hater, so I will certainly not agree with everything he says. But he did make a good point that the Democrats, influenced most recently by the Clintons, abandoned the working class, and this lack of support for the working class is what is causing such a huge upheaval in the country. I tend to agree with this. Even Jordan Peterson, whom I am more in line with, agrees that excessive income inequality will cause eventual economic failure.
Hedges also is of the theory that the next bubble to burst will be the college debt crisis, and solutions will be limited since we already used every (progressive) solution in our arsenal in the last recession. I cant argue against either of these; when/if that bubble bursts, it appears like we will be giving the right wing austerity a try and get to actually test it out.
My solutions will, it seems, be very different then yours though, at any stretch.