[quails8mydog]

Maybe splitting them is helpful, but why would you have to do them sequentially? Many of the things that reduce income inequality also help reduce poverty. Poverty isn't "low-hanging fruit" and it's something people have been trying to eradicate longer than we've been alive.

Saying "let's not even think about B until we've 100% sorted A" is just a way to ensure B never gets done.

[abustamam]

I think I gave the impression that we should tackle them sequentially with my comment. My point was that I don't think it's controversial to eradicate poverty, but for whatever reason it is controversial to eradicate income inequality. We don't need to tackle them sequentially but we also don't need to wait for a silver policy bullet that solves income inequality while we try to solve poverty as well. It may be possible to do both, but in the event it's impossible to do B at least we can still try to do A.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Is that what I said?

I apologize. That was not what I meant.

I simply stated they should be decoupled, and approached concurrently.