I'll try to respond, even though "lol" and linking an article isn't much to argue with.

I'm not worth that much money, though I do fine and have plenty of time to change that. I didn't have the SAT services or country clubs or private schools of your article. I went to an excellent school on a merit scholarship and not from entitlement.

You need to provide evidence for the middle class dying off. And you need to provide more than an opinion piece of rhetoric to substantiate your claim of a "10% aristocracy". Finally, you need to provide some evidence of why someone having more money than someone else is bad.

One thing I do agree with in your article: medicine and law are two state-sanctioned monopolies. I absolutely agree that the government ought to stop preventing competition. I also agree that the government should not prop up the financial sector or bail out any company, ever. Inflation is the biggest tax of all; great for finance and lousy for Americans.

From your article: "Let’s suppose that some of us do look up. We see the iceberg. Will that induce us to diminish our exertions in supreme child-rearing? The grim truth is that, as long as good parenting and good citizenship are in conflict, we’re just going to pack a few more violins for the trip."

I agree with removing government, but what's wrong with the way the top 10% of Americans are raising their children? What's the iceberg?

> My grandparents never lost faith in the limitless possibilities of a life free from government.

Yes, good.

> But in their last years, as the reserves passed down from the Colonel ran low, they became pretty diligent about collecting their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Unfortunately true. Everyone wants his handout, just take away the other guy's. Cut medicaid and increase farm subsidies, says one side; remove agricultural tariffs and more food stamps from the other. Let's get rid of both. Nobody gets to steal the wealth of another.

> regressive sales and property taxes.

You'll have to sell me on why "regressive" taxes are bad. As far as I'm concerned, here's how to fund the gov't: total expenses / number of adult citizens = each citizen's bill. Send it to everyone and everyone pays the same amount. This makes a lot of sense: within the stuff government ought to do (keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts), no one gets significantly more in services than another.

> The income-tax system that so offended my grandfather has had the unintended effect of creating a highly discreet category of government expenditures. They’re called “tax breaks,” but it’s better to think of them as handouts that spare the government the inconvenience of collecting the money in the first place.

This is disingenuous; stealing less money is not an expenditure.

> None of them can afford to live around here... In 1980, a house in St. Louis would trade for a decent studio apartment in Manhattan. Today that house will buy an 80-square-foot bathroom in the Big Apple.

Move elsewhere. I choose not to live in an uber-expensive metropolis of the "coastal elites" because I don't want to spend that much. Sounds like St. Louis is a fine place to start looking, especially with the advent of remote work.

> Local zoning regulation imposes excessive restrictions on housing development and drives up prices.

Yes. Zoning is stupid. The state has no right to tell a citizen what he may or may not do with his property.

All this amounts to roughly a hundred pounds of fine whine. One having more than another is not an issue except for envious people who wish to steal their wealth through the club of the state.