These are not so much "outrageous flaws" but conscious and reasonable choices. For example, not counting things like SNAP as income makes sense because a government policy targeted at reducing inequality is not the same as that inequality not existing.

It is far more desirable for those programs to be minimized by eliminating the inequality in the first place.

Also, keep in mind that Gini is most useful as relative index.

Making the changes you suggest would obviously result in a better number in the US, but when recalculated for all thee other countries it would not change the situation much.

In fact, since both taxes and the social safety net are low in the US, it would probably drop the rankings.

> Few dispute that wealth shares at the top have risen in America, nor that the increase is driven by fortunes at the very top, among people who really can be considered an elite. The question, instead, is by just how much.

The Economist article concludes that the rich are indeed, getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That's the heart of OP's article.

I may heave misread the article, and the first graph, but it appears that the article confirms that inequality is growing.

It just suggests that inequality is growing at a slower rate than the raw numbers suggest. The most generously adjusted estimates show a doubling of adjusted income for the 1% over the past few decades rather than the higher multiples that we are used to hearing about.

Is it really good news that no matter how you try to tweak the numbers, the income gap is growing?