[SpicyLemonZest]

When people discuss fighting income inequality, they're generally referring to structural obstacles, not the precise dollar amounts of the post-tax income distribution. If we increase Social Security funding by 10% with a haircut to all incomes above $100k, but don't change the underlying division between rich professionals who choose whichever job most satisfies them and poor millennials who never expect to achieve career satisfaction, I don't think we've successfully fought income inequality.

[MiroF]

> they're generally referring to structural obstacles,

I agree, and I'm not saying that 10% increase to social security fundamentally changes the underlying division. I think more drastic action is needed. But I wouldn't fight against a haircut on incomes over $100k that expanded the lower limits on medicaid (which many poor millennials take advantage of), even if income inequality still existed at the end.

Are rich, left-leaning professionals really under the illusion that the sort of policy change needed to fight structural inequality will lead to no change in their own relative purchasing power because there are even richer baddies out there to tax?

[SpicyLemonZest]

Again, the fundamental question is whether structural inequality is indeed a problem that can be solved by government spending, and I don't think it is.