The purpose of these exercises is always to push the perceived issue on to some other. So if you are union tradesman in NYC pulling down $90k/year you don't wan

The purpose of these exercises is always to push the perceived issue on to some other. So if you are union tradesman in NYC pulling down $90k/year you don't want to hear about the top quintile, you'd rather talk about the top 5%. If you are software engineer making $250k you don't want to talk about the top 5% but instead point to the 1%. If you are a specialist physician making $600k/year (or the subsidized journalist child of specialist physician) then it's not really about the 1% but instead about the .1%. And so forth and so on. This is far more about resentments and insecurities than policy. The fact of the matter is if you want to re-adjust the economic landscape towards the poor in a meaningful way it is going to realistically require harming the economic interest of all the current winners -- from the $90k/year tradesman all the way up to Jeff Bezos. In all likelihood it will probably also mean higher prices for goods and services as well as higher unemployment. Maybe those trade-offs are totally worth it, but we should be adults about these things and not pretend there's some magic policy that's going to make everything great for everyone except some tiny cabal of not-us that's probably evil anyway.