That was his thesis, but it's since been questioned/refuted: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2

That was his thesis, but it's since been questioned/refuted: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16160.pdf > Using a sample of 19 advanced economies spanning over 30 years, I find no empirical evidence that dynamics move in the way Piketty suggests. Results are robust to several alternative estimates of r-g. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/11/28/economists-are-rethinking-the-numbers-on-inequality https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/11/28/economists-are... http://davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-Tax_Data_and_Inequality.pdf http://davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-Tax_Data_and_Inequali... > Top income share estimates based only on individual tax returns, such as Piketty and Saez (2003), are biased by tax-base changes, major social changes, and missing income sources. Addressing these issues requires numerous assumptions, especially for broadening income beyond that reported on tax returns. This paper shows the effects of adjusting for technical tax issues and the sensitivity to alternative assumptions for distributing missing income sources. Our results suggest that top income shares are lower than other tax-based estimates, and since the early 1960s, increasing government transfers and tax progressivity resulted in little change in after-tax top income shares.