Again.  Explain why basically every other western country in the world has HIGHER "sweat of your brow" tax rates, and LOWER capital gains tax rates.  Yet doesn't have these problems.

I'm giving you actual facts, figures and reasearch... and your response is a radio hosts talking points. 

Yep, Just as your fox news talking points. Lets just agree to disagree. Personally I think need to study some sociology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology

They aren't talking points.  They are actual factual numbers that you can look at and weigh for yourself.

Furthermore, what exactly is "Fox News" about the gini coefficent being higher because illegal immigrants are inherently disadvantaged in our society and essentially work as an underclass to fuel economic growth.  I don't watch Fox news but I was always under the impression they liked to paint Illegal immigrants as people who lived high off the hog stealing government benefits and american jobs.   Painting them as a crushed lower class with no chance for advancement that is one of the largest causes of income inequality sounds more like it would be the talking point of an "Amnesty for Illegal aliens" group.

Since essentially that would mean giving illegal aliens amnesty/have open immigration and suddenly the gini coeffcient should drop a lot and economic mobility should increase.

Hell it's one of the things used to try and get the California Dream act passed. 

Aside from which... what about what I said is in anyway a talking point or incorrect?

The whole point of a debate is trying to disprove someone, not the blind restating of your opinion over and over again.  You stated an opinon, which I countered through a number of facts and figures.

The next step would be to argue why those facts and figures are incorrect, or at the very least admit ignroance on the matter.

Though yeah... i'd suggest studying sociology.  You'd have a much different idea about why income dispairty exists and what could actually be done to change it.

You'd actually learn a lot of interesting information.

For example.  The Gini Coefficent for individuals is almost completely unchanged from 1994.

It's gone UP for households and families.  (IE peoples living together).

However the amount of money people make vs each other is relativly unchanged.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1Y25WlUbsXM/TqdJJKE5YHI/AAAAAAAAEgc/mEfoQs_f7xs/s1600/US-Gini-Coefficient-for-Individuals-Families-Households-1994-2010.png

Part of this is due to the sociological trend that people marrying outside of their income bracket is MUCH less likely then it used to be.

Which is actually why we have staganancy in economic mobility.  It's increasing in oppurtinity through work, but decreasing through oppurtunity by mating.

One can guess that with women earning more and more money, people more want to marry someone "on their level" rather then one of them having to deal with the ego blow of the other person being the "breadwinner".

Two income houses on the rise also raises the gini coefficent because they essentially have double the money single income households due.

A lot of the gini coefficent rise is suprirsingly less related to people gaining more money, and more related to changes in society.

I will also add that complaint with a problem without proper research is actually something very damaging... as it often leads to false causes as narrative and over time such narrative becomes regular and the focus while true reasons for said issues are left wholly in the dark.

For example, the debate over affirmative action which completely ignores the transformative asset gap.

You can do all the affirmitive action you want, without transformative assets it will amount to nothing as it becomes far to easy for the newly promoted "black middle class" to slide backwords, as a larger percentage of white poor come out of poverty is higher on percentage.

Since we're on the topic of the Gini coefficient the question that must be asked is "Is there anything inherently wrong with living in a society with unequal incomes?"

Is there something wrong with an individual earning more income in the prime of their career than someone who is just starting out? Is there a problem with someone who is in a more senior position and has substantially more responsibility earning a better income? Is it unfair for someone who made the sacrifice and put in the effort to develop more in demand skills be rewarded for their efforts?

Obviously, the answer is no ...

Where inequality becomes a problem is when it comes as the result of a corrupt and unfair system, but then what needs to be battled is the corruption not the inequality.

Thom Hartmann had a great segment on that a while back. Here it is. I think you would find it interesting.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=thom+hartmann+social+inequality&view=detail&mid=2D9527356151AD4598DE2D9527356151AD4598DE&first=0&FORM=LKVR11

Wow, who could have a problem with poorly reasoned propaganda that doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation?

As I have said perhaps the 4th or 5th time on this topic, tax rate is not the issue in America.

It is the loopholes.

The elastic clause can get bent WAY out of shape.  To say, "if only X stuck to the constitution" is like saying nothing would be a problem if people just were ethical.  Thing is that when they are not, then there is problems.  While it is critical to be in line with the Constitution, to keep saying "follow the Constituiton" is THE answer is to ignore a number of other very serious problems that need to get addressed.