the alternative - skewing taxes to target success - is an absurd set of incentives to put into a growing society.
ENGINEERING "SUCCESS"
I'm glad someone else took AS to task for this rather shopworn, long-in-the-tooth, Thatcher-era bombast.
It's amazing how imbibed that is, still, that it seems almost a principle to some, rather than a perspective (or merely the political posturing it was for Maggie et. al.).
Apart from the obvious, but non-trivial, observation that mere income is not "success", the whole house of cards rests on the notion (a), that 'the system' somehow allocates wealth more fairly than an 'empowered' government can do and, (b), that "incentive" is only money.
I tell you this: if you put the position of Chairman of AT&T, as it once existed, say, up for bid, you'd get a large number of qualified people willing to work in such a job for a LOT less than those who have had it.
Of course, that example is a fine illustration - and refutation - of points "a" and "b" above. One doesn't even have to go in for communism, socialism, or central planning, in general, to make that point. No does one have to make a choice between progressive income taxes or highly progressive consumption taxes, to make that point.
'ENGINEERING' IN THE LONG RUN
What's more, it's entirely conceivable that societies, as they age and mature, especially economically, are capable of a greater amount of 'smart engineering' than early-age societies.
To assume the "conservative corporatist" view that nothing evolves - politically, morally, organizationally, even against the backdrop of rising living standards, seems almost absurd.
"Yes, we can."
