Only the extremely stupid and the extremely intransigent need convincing, however. Needing, A Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows.
I use a few of the Kelly visuals in explanation, first:
Second:
On the first image the yellow line would represent fairer taxation. Then, by giving the lower income ranges more disposable income more goods and services would be purchased, these are the consumers of the system, and there would be a multiplier effect and the economy would be healthier. Note, it is fairer taxation. Totally fair, that would be to throw the parasites, those living off the rest of us, into jail - roughly the bigger share of those above "the gold line" in the second image. Merely fairer would be to tax them more, and since they hoard and trade bonds and stocks, taking more from them would not impact the real economy of usefulness - goods and services the bulk of the population needs and wants, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and housing. Little things, that a "massive suffering" [aka small incremental tax increase on marginal income] by the wealthy is offset against, so we can expect their gigantic HOWL, via their own voices, and their owned mainstream media and owned Republican politicians.
Now, I've put a perspective on things, and by putting that yellow tax line as I did, there is relief for those having little and paying too much, while the income above the red line, via the yellow line in that first image, would be greater than the loss between the two lines left of the corssover point. More money for government, so that union-bashing would not be so in vogue, it would be wholly unneeded, and Social Security and single payer could be funded with cash to spare, reserves always being better than citizen-owned-government paying interest to bankers and other Treasury Bond holders.
That said, if you want detail, the two links at the start, again, are here and here. With regard to the Domhoff study, what would the nation look like with more viable political parties than two?
That does not have to be a rhetorical question. Breaking the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum gridlock is feasible. We'd need an educated electorate for that, so all those bleating from the far right about educational reform should take a sobering moment to consider what the real thing might deliver.