The New York Times runs an extended profile piece on Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, the two economists whose work underpins much of the current political assault on “inequality.” Last week, I posted here on the overhyped discussion, including links to recent research indicating that the Piketty-Saez analysis is fundamentally flawed. Simply: they ignore a lot of relevant things.

In a generally positive article, the NYT shows the ideological bent of the pair.

As much as Mr. Piketty’s and Mr. Saez’s work has informed the national debate over earnings and fairness, their proposed corrective remains far outside the bounds of polite political conversation: much, much higher top marginal tax rates on the rich, up to 50 percent, or 70 percent or even 90 percent, from the current top rate of 35 percent.

The two economists argue that even Democrats’ boldest plan to increase taxes on the wealthy — the Buffett Rule, a 30 percent minimum tax on earnings over $1 million — would do little to reverse the rich’s gains.

Note that “reverse the rich’s gains.” So, that’s the objective, not job creation or economic growth?

In the Wall Street Journal Holman Jenkins effectively reframes the debate. I particularly like his opening paragraphs.

If it were learned that the car driven by the average American is 10 times more likely to burst into flames than the car driven by the richest 1%, what should the policy response be? Should it be to mandate that cars driven by the rich burst into flames more often?

Income inequality is a strange obsession, at least to the extent the obsessives focus their policy responses on trying to adjust the condition of the top 1% rather than improving the opportunities of everyone else.

A strange obsession indeed. The Jenkins column should be read in its entirety. We may be living with this debate at least until, oh, November 6 maybe.