>The former isn’t true for income

Wealth inequality is not about income is it?

>doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations

So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed?

>The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%.

The statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there.

>When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst.

What part of "wealth inequality" would make you think repeating a deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?