Peter Burns writes: >> The willingness of the population to accept highly progressive taxation is tied to the range and quality of public services which they receive in return. << There's a lot of truth to that, especially in Western Europe back when social democracy ruled. But here in the US, if I am not mistaken, the big increases in the progressiveness of the tax system coincide with wars. When soldiers are "paying taxes" by risking their lives in battle, they have the clout to influence the powers that be to raise taxes on the wealthy back home. (The leaders actually put rhetoric about "equality of sacrifice" into practice if they worry about the "morale of the troops" or the possible rebelliousness of the returning troops after the war.) I think there's also some truth to the notion that the tax system stayed relatively progressive (compared to nowadays) partly due to the Cold War (and the need to avoid the kind of veteran rebellion that occurred after WW I). (This parallels the argument that the US did pretty well (compared to nowadays) on welfare-state and civil rights issues as long as our ruling elite was competing with the USSR on the world stage.) Absent a mass grassroots social movement of the sort that scares the rulers to give into social-democratic reforms, welfare state programs, and technocratic management, it sure looks like we need a war to stimulate greater equality. Gee, who should we bomb? ;-) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
