Deliberately confusing cause and effect.

From an otherwise sound article in The Guardian, pointing out that until the late 1990s, most people didn't pay much or anything at all for the land underneath their homes (Bayard heartily disagrees on this point but he is wrong). This was the inevitable result of a package of government policies that had vaguely Georgist intentions, although the article does not explain it...

Meanwhile, young people who do not earn enough to afford a large mortgage are caught in a downward spiral of debt.

“Income inequality is the real underlying problem for buyers today,” says Danny Dorling, professor of geography at the University of Oxford. “People can’t save for a deposit so they are forced to rent, but rents are so high they can’t ever afford to save. Rich property investors are simply rubbing their hands with glee.”

It has bugger all to do with income inequality, of course people earn different amounts of money depending largely on how lucky and/or hard working they are but the differences are not that huge. The vast bulk of people of whatever age have a reasonable opportunity to earn at least an average income over their lifetimes.

The inequality in land ownership stems from... inequality in land ownership. End of. And in the absence of land value tax (or some other package of measures) land ownership tends to become more and more concentrated over time.

So gross earned income inequality before housing costs is not that terrible, or even a necessarily bad thing in itself and certainly not the cause of housing inequality. What makes the huge difference is rents, which some households have to pay out of net income after tax and which are collected by other households.

And this is where the vicious circle mentioned by Danny Dorling kicks in. Forget about vague terms like "wealth" and just look at people's incomes after tax minus housing costs or plus rental income.