&gt;&gt; Literally no one in America, save for a very few on the fringe, is talking about “eliminating income inequality.”<p>I don&#x27;t know about that; I&#x27;ve heard plenty of people talk about eliminating income inequality as an end goal (but I live in the SF Bay Area, so maybe a reflection of demographics out here?)<p>It&#x27;s like saying no one but the fringe is going to vote for donald trump, and yet those poll numbers...<p>&gt;&gt; What people are talking about is a progressive income tax to reduce inequality.<p>Well, we have that. Taxes are historically low, so I&#x27;d be ok with raising them somewhat, but not too much.<p>&gt;&gt; So by taxing the wealthy and spending it on services, we can better ensure that the level playing field you allude to continues to exist.<p>This is really the crux of my argument: instead of increasing taxes first, we should hold the government more accountable over spending and look at programs and how they help or do not help the poor. Poverty is the metric that should be focused on, not inequality. If inequality is reduced as a side effect, all the better. But poverty is the problem. If government got more money from taxes, what makes you think they would use it to effectively reduce poverty?