divideandconquer wrote:You talk about history. Well, there were a few decades where the wealth was permitted to transfer from the few at the top of the food chain to the people. As far as I know, that's a first. How is that not an historical anomaly?
It's called
progress. Calling it an "anomaly" suggests there is no explanation, but I think it's readily explained. I can agree that most of the very wealthy saw high taxes on the rich as a concession, a kind of insurance against trouble. Among the American fortunes, however, there were a few Utopian types (some of them backed the Bolsheviks out of idealism, others for profit). Andrew Carnagie genuinely believed in uplifting everyone, e.g. that's why he paid for thousands of free local libraries across the U.S. (something Rockefeller would
never do just for its own sake). There's this idea that keeps springing up, that humans are capable of evolving mature, egalitarian and peaceful societies.
And, at the end of the day, those high taxes on the very rich were enacted by elected representatives of 'the people'; it was at least partly an expression of the constituents' will.
Also, aren't income taxes on the top brackets still quite high in Europe?—Great Britain, France et al? Isn't that why Gérard Depardieu moved to Russia?
Now [b]we are returning to the natural world order, the way it's always been. That's what history tells us. Not to mention, all we have to do is look around and see for ourselves... the way it's going.
I think this is a dangerous notion because it absolves the believer of all responsibility for making a better world; it's a defeatist view insisting that "nothing can be done, people will always be slaves to some overlord, wars are inevitable, human progress and freedom are fantasies." I think that idea is provable untrue—surely you can name some examples? How about Magna Carta? Wasn't that a small step in the right direction?