[bmmayer1]

If the true intention of 'inequality' arguments is to highlight the plight of the emaciated and hungry, then it certainly doesn't come across. I don't know where you're getting the 40% number, but 40% of Americans are not 'unable to think about anything but hunger.' 14.5% of Americans are below the poverty line (that's about the same % of people on SNAP). 5% of Americans are considered 'extremely food insecure.'

I understand how '85% of Americans are doing just fine' isn't great political rhetoric, but don't you think it's disingenuous to pretend that 'inequality' arguments which mostly highlight what % of wealth the wealthy have compared to everyone else is really about the poor, and not what it's really about, which is soaking the rich and middle class for higher taxes? I mean, after all, that's why phrases like 'the 1%' exist in the first place, to create some sort of camaraderie of outrage amongst the 'proletariat' to pursue a particular economic policy, right?

In any event, if people who truly cared about the poor advocated for solutions to poverty, instead of focusing on 'inequality', they might find their arguments fall on less deaf ears.

[antisthenes]

Solution to poverty is a massive retroactive redistribution of wealth and far more progressive taxes.

[bmmayer1]

Do you have any evidence that that will work? Can you point to a situation in history when a 'massive retroactive redistribution of wealth' has solved poverty?