I even acknowledge that the poor are getting richer. The problem is just that they are getting richer at a slower pace than the rich, and unless this problem is addressed through taxation, then it will lead to economic stagnation or worse.
Competition is the best bar to too much competition.
Picketty's explanation is that capital's reward is higher than work's, but I'm not bent on defending that explanation (even if until a better one comes up, I'll stick to Picketty's).
As far as I know there is no counter example of the phenomenon itself (whatever the underlying reason is).
Even statistical anomalies like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs got more money, once they became slightly rich, from the capital they owned than from the work they produced.
> and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large
which has nothing to do with "liberty" - it's about "efficiency" or may be "equality" (of outcomes), but not "liberty" in any way.
(Also, there's a lot of valid criticism of Picketty that his supporters usually choose to completely ignore, but that's not the point of the argument anyway).
As for Picketty, the only serious criticism I'm aware of had to do with his explanation about why wealth begets wealth, not on the fact that there is a preferential accretion mechanism for wealth inherent to capitalism.
If you have any source or example where capital holders do not increase their share faster than non capital holders (say, e.g. workers) then I'd be happy to know about it.
Because capitalism is a system in which the rich get richer. This preferential accumulation of wealth where wealth already is is an inherent feature of capitalism.
The same kind of phenomenon can be seen in the population of cities for example: the more people there are in a city, the more other people are likely to move there.
If you want to know more about this, see, e.g. Picketty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...)
Also, profound inequality is bad for growth (The IMF says so, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I...): "when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.".
So given that there is a runaway feedback loop that make the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer, and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large, it logically follows that there must exist some scheme to redistribute a part of the wealth of the extra-rich to the rest of society.
Taxation is (or should be) such a shame.
Note that there is no moral argument here. No finger pointing, no entiltement. Just a systemic view of things: it is detrimental to all to let a runaway feedback loop increase inequalities.