[ConfuciusSay]

The current consensus among economists is that increasing inequality will lead to disaster for the entire economy, while decreasing inequality actually increases growth.

Sure, you're right that nothing is set in stone, and you could have a country that has low inequality but it's still a terrible place to live by other metrics, but this is useless hypothesizing and speculation. What evidence do you have to support the statement that "An extreme progressive tax plus startups will STILL increase inequality. Not decrease." Seems to me, in the years when the top marginal tax rates were higher, those were some of the years with the least income inequality in American history.

Why not look at what people who study our current economies are saying instead of speculating?

From the IMF:

"We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down."

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986....

[forrestthewoods]

It's not that simple. Bringing in more refugees increases inequality. Bringing in more refugees is also good for the economy. Therefore an increase in inequality does mean economic disaster.

Not all increases in inequality are equal. They can not be treated as such.