A World Bank economist and inequality expert Branko Milanovic (I would suggest looking up his work it is really very informative on this subject) put it best, that inequality is like cholesterol: ''There is 'good' and 'bad' inequality".

Good inequality provides incentives to work harder, get more/better education or take a risk. You may earn more than or vice versa but the avenues of improvement (i.e. education, starting a new business etc.) are open to you and your descendants.

Bad inequality is where those at the top use their wealth and greater access to resources and politics to preserve their position, by making sure they have access to the best jobs and oppose reforms and policies that would endanger their position .

I would argue that bad inequality is now all pervasive not just in the USA but around the world, where politics and the economy seems increasingly geared to largely benefit a few at the top. By virtue of the fact that they control capital (whether financial or physical), have greater access and influence over politics and thus national institutions through political finance (i.e. campaign finance in the USA or party finance in the UK). Their children have a much better chance of success due to the fact that they get a better by default rather than through their own initiative.

In effect, I think this debate is not about income some people will always earn more than others that is a generally accepted fact of life. Rather it is about equality of opportunity, where the chance to improve your lot in life or your children's lot in life is increasingly closed off.