I agree that the "class warfare" talk should be shelved for the time being in lieu of some more important issues. However, I think your notion of income equality is somewhat moot if capital gains doesn't come into the argument. The current discussion in Washington has focused on how to fairly structure taxes. The argument is not about what percent of income gained from "work" has each class taken home, it's about overall income. I haven't taken the time to look at the numbers, but I'm guessing that if capital gains were added into "income" that would turn the numbers on their head. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but that the tax structure influences more things than just take home pay - like the price of equities in the stock market which usually benefits the 'rich' more than the 'middle class'. Also, I didn't notice if that was pre-tax income or take home pay, which also may skew the results. Anyways, thanks for the great thoughts - cheers.

As usual, loved the post. This blog (and others like it) needs to become more widely followed. In response to an "investment"? in education: education = a voting population better versed in financial matters. A voting population that better understands financial matters means more politicians who run and get elected on a pro-Reagan method base. In turn, the more "investment" style government spending which takes place, leading to larger future growth. Investments in education pay off in more ways than one.