If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?
I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.
What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?
funneling all gains to the business owners
Yes, the accumulation of capital gains should rightly go to the owners of capital.
Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans.
Those at the bottom of the income spectrum pay virtually no taxes, so yes, tax cuts should be directed towards those that actually pay taxes (upper-middle and upper income earners), and who are, arguably, more skilled in deploying capital in ways which are productive.
I don't know how to change this realistically.
Income inequality will not be resolved through transfer payments or redistribution - it will be solved through job skills training and growth in labor production.
To put it simply: no poor person has ever gotten me a job.
I have considered that. In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow. To me that would indicate a healthy and long term sustainable economy.
What does this mean? What do you mean should and who is in the "top"? By should, you mean we should peg "middle-class" wages to some index that will track the growth of "the top" - thereby forcing privately owned business owners to pay what the government tells them to? And what if they can't, they just have to close up shop? Can they fire workers?
I think you need to consider more deeply the implications of you ideas, and concepts such as what people, governments, or institutions "should" be forced to do.
Also, the "top" earners in the USA don't generate labor income, they accumulate capital. If you want to piggyback off their efforts to steer capital in a more productive manner, thereby growing it, you can open up a online brokerage account and buy some shares of any publicly traded company you want.
Not sure the algorithm would be... but it needs to be tied directly to # employed and average salary to encourage growth, and discourage greed at the top.
Some CEO's do almost fraudulent things -- but get a golden parachute when they leave, this behavior needs to stop too. If a CEO fucks up - fire them, without any severance.
Over the last 30 years the average salary of top management has grown a lot while the salaries of most other works have stagnated. If a company is successful the salaries of all employees should grow at the same rate. The CEO is already making more money so he is already rewarded more for his role.
if everyone has more money but there is no cap on the top, things will just get more expensive, and then more basic income will be provided, and the cycle will continue..
not necessarily a fan or a detractor of any/all of these things, but just chiming in.
The more you think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. Should a disabled veteran receive the same amount of basic income as a billionaire heir? Should a single mother of three working at Walmart receive the same total basic income as three Google employees?
A well managed welfare state is a much better option than basic income, in my opinion.