Piketty's general observations seem correct.
However, I tend to disagree with your remedy and his.
The wealthiest 1% now own as much wealth as the bottom 50%. A trend-line, that can't continue!
I can't see where either prescription has a lot going for it, expect a return to the failed economic conditions they created.
For every effect there is always a cause!
What we need is measure that trims out all the blood sucking parasites, who between them, suck the very life blood from the economy; and or, double the cost of everything!
The entirely unproductive money making enterprises, include too many examples than can be covered here.
We do need to return the seriously white anted pillars, that alone support the economy, to public ownership, on the patently proven grounds, its the least expensive/best economic model.
Other than that, we need reform which rewards endeavor and enterprise, not penalties.
We need huge tax reform that reduces our tax to say just 18% collected, as an impost on all expenditure, and as the revenue numbers increase, allow the rate to further reduce.
This would be just an initial 11% impost in real comparative terms, given what it gives back!
Direct funding models, and almost complete regional autonomy, would reduce the cost of most essential public service by 30%, which could be rolled out as vastly improved coalface expenditure!
Add the cheapest possible energy to the world's real lowest tax, and the world will be beating a path to our door, to set up high tech enterprise here, along with well cashed up self funded retirees, currently in the sights of European administrations.
One can make a case for equal opportunity!
And for removing the economic lead from the saddle bags of the disadvantaged; but never a case for true equality, given there's no such animal.
Rhrosty.

There is an oft-repeated assertion synonymous with the author's "as they enrich themselves they enrich all of us", which may be summarised by the trite phrase "the trickle down effect".

I can't think of any empirical, and even less ethical, evidence to support it.

Mjji

A far more acurate naming is the "Golden shower effect".

Unfortunately, that's almost as indiscriminate as Tomas Piketty's remedies, Graham. Until wealth disparities are seen in terms of the differences between makers and takers we're going nowhere on this. We're failing to discriminate between the 0.1% who capture vast quantities of our community-generated economic rents and the 99.9% who do not.

Curiously, we tax people for working, whilst purposely under-taxing those who speculate in our land and natural resources.

Is it any wonder we currently have so many aspiring rent-seeking investors in property when the tax system tells them that's where they must be if they are to have any chance of improving their lot? ("Just look at the success of property investors!" run the advertisements.)

On the other hand, is it any wonder politicians can do back-room deals with mining companies after they've spent $22 million putting the fear of God into us about what's going to happen to Australia if we try to collect our fair share from mining rents?

Whether or not we can see it at the moment, capturing community-generated economic rents, instead of taxing productivity, is looming as the question of our times. Ken Henry started the debate, but it seems he will be ignored until, like Ireland, Greece and Spain, Australia heads down the gurgler.

Yes, nor will providing welfare for the rich, improve our economy, or the conditions of our most disadvantaged!
We are one nation, one economy, not many nations all competing for a larger slice of a clearly shrinking, virtually two ingredient pie, mining and agriculture; with things like a manufacturing industry, little more than an economic condiment!
What replaces once only mineral exports, when they're gone!?
As always, our best ideas and people, seem to be our most successful exports.
And we can't seem to disassociate foreign capital from the tax avoiding, profit repatriating, foreign control, we just don't need!
Nor can we seem to create enough (any) visionary investment examples, to keep our truly massive super fund, investing here.
Take the musical number, Mexican Hat dance, and replace all lyrics, with privatize/privatize/privatize, and that's the song both sides seems to be singing!?
We continue to import that which we have a wealth of right here.
Arguably, just throwing good money away, and then begging carpet bagging forefingers, for investment capital.
We have the most profitable banks in the developed world, and a super fund over 1.8 billion and rising.
These resources, need to be saddled up with our riders, in our colors and asked to run for us, by providing Government self terminating 30 year bonds, used only to build income earning infrastructure!
All of which will help to increase and add to our economic activity, and export incomes, jobs and wealth growing opportunities!
Our parliaments are filled with people, bereft of real world experience, and who seem to think, that all that matters is the political contest, and retaining government!
Almost like, "infants terrible", competing for tin toys, and king of the castle, in the kindy sandpit.
And when you do tune in very occasionally, doesn't sound just like that!?
i.e., What a fine mess you've got us into now.
It was all your fault, no it wasn't! etc/etc.
And these are the very people that are going to fix things, rather than make them worse?
Rhrosty.

"Rather than equality of opportunity, they are fixated on equality of outcome, despite 20th Century experience in a string of communist countries showing this leads to an authoritarian state where fiscal, political and social powers are all used to brutalise the populace as the only way to keep it in a state of uniformity."

This quote demonstrates the typical approach of the laissez faire politicians and their camp followers. It involves, as here, taking a specific example and then generalizing to the whole world, all the while ignoring the actual evidence.

There are two books that you might like to read Graham before you venture further into an area that you clearly do not understand. They are Pickett and Wilkinson's "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger" and Stiglitz's "The Price of Inequality".

The evidence is overwhelming: there is a direct correlation between the level of equality in a society and their general levels of health and happiness as these terms are measured in a broad sense.

Not that we can expect evidence based policy outcomes from our current government which is one of the most ideologically driven in recent memory, among many failings.