balance, because when disparities of income limit the ability of individuals to enter the
market or compete within the market frustration and anger will continually resurface and contribute to division within the society. And disparities of income are increasingly on
the rise.
Several theorists propose progressive taxation to address this disparity, which they argued will increase one’s sense of community. The argument goes it is the governmental policies, economic environments, and tax policies of countries that contribute to individual and corporate success. Thus, it is the responsibility of these people and companies not to avoid tax but to give something back to the society that has facilitated their success.
Probably one of the more extreme proposals for progressive taxation comes from Thomas Piketty, which he presented in Capitalism in the Twenty-first Century.31 After providing one of the more comprehensive analyses of current economic structures, the rise of the one percent, and the causes underpinning social unrest, Piketty suggests a progressive tax rate on the order of 80 percent on incomes over $500,000 or $1 million a year “will not only reduce the growth of the US economy but would in fact distribute the fruits of growth more widely while imposing reasonable limits on economically useless (or even harmful) behavior.”32 Piketty argues, after presenting an in-depth analysis, the United States could sustain such a tax.
Critics, some of whom don’t think Piketty is entirely wrong in his triumphalist story about progressive tax reform, argue Piketty's argument for progressive taxation is a story is that is flat and teleological … the history of progressive tax reform in the United States is
far more fraught, contested, and controversial than these numbers — or Piketty’s broader narrative — would seem to suggest.33 All the
same, critics need to admit that Piketty’s
conclusion that “equality is first of all a social, historical, and political construction” is true; and that “for the same level of economic or technological development, there are always many different ways of organizing a property system or a border system, a social and political system or a fiscal and educational system.”34
Consequently, the right structure lies somewhere in the middle – between Trump’s tax breaks to the rich and this more extreme proposal of Piketty. And that is something more moderates interested in building community can agree upon and build toward.
How to Make It Happen
Given the disenfranchisement that has arisen because of various flaws in our system and the dysfunctional institutions that might otherwise address such, maybe it is time to start to think about strategically repositioning our society for the future. And maybe it is time, as has always been the case in troubling and troublesome times, we turn to creatives – thinkers and makers – to help us find our way. This is because thinkers and makers stand at the forefront of change, as they remind us of our past as well as present opportunities for a better future. But this would require a
reembrace of intellect, not anti-intellectualism.
America could lead in this regard. It could learn
History is not static. It will change, and if America wishes to bind itself to the past it will be writing its own obituary. Given the proper orientation, people could move America forward in ways that once again would lead the world.
72