Kier - we are in agreement on this. IMHO, although interesting, the article lacks the nuance required of a true solution. (Virtually) no one wants absolute income equality. (and the notion that no one could afford a home in many parts of the country is complete BS - the only reason homes are unaffordable to begin with IS the income inequality!)

We have gotten in trouble with our particular form of end-stage capitalism by asking "what's best for business?" and warping our laws and taxes to serve this master. The real question should be "what's good for society?" - and our laws should serve to that end.

Unfortunately, the concept of a more sustainable gini coefficient is too deep for the majority of our voters to understand, and too easy to defeat by wealthy people throwing money at the "problem"...