I believe that Progressive messaging, and the hope to make real "progress" requires a more nuanced approach. It is not just about the wealthy [and super wealthy] versus the poor [or middle class]. A "social class war" creates a superficial enemy. There is a structural problem of huge wealth shift to the wealthy. That structure needs to be revamped. But not all wealthy people are monsters like Musk and Bezos. To change behavior, however, requires changes in attitudes and incentives.
Consider an example. Taylor Swift has a net worth of over $1.5 Billion. She gave away more than $19 Million to food banks, charities and foundations. If only 1/3 of those contributions were paid in additional taxes, it would yield $6 million in tax revenue yet make NO difference in her lifestyle. Now multiply $6 million times the more than 400 persons with similar or greater wealth, and it would generate about $2.4 Billion more in revenue WITHOUT any negative effect on the daily lifestyles of those persons. Indeed, their respective wealth would increase by more than the $6 Million in less than a year.It may be admittedly naive, but this shift in attitude provides a potential for shared decision-making on how money the wealthy were already likely to give away. Those unwilling to make charitable contributions like Swift would be "incentivized" to do so, but still with NO adverse impact on their lifestyle. Similar shifts in thinking would prompt lifting the cap on Social Security Tax contributions. There really is no rational justification for an upper cap on tax contributions unless those above a certain income level would be disqualified from receiving benefits, which they are not. Again, continuing to pay Social Security Tax on income above $250 K would have little or no impact upon lifestyle. This does NOT mean that benefit levels should shoot up dramatically, but it would end the quarrels about fund insolvency.
And there are even broader potential implications for a shared contribution, or "wealth tax," if it were implemented. More wealthy people would be inclined to support candidates and representatives who were willing to make equitable and constructive legislative and executive decisions in the best interests of ALL citizens, instead of contributions to PAC organization whose only function is to support candidates seeking to increase the wealth and power of their benefactors - perpetuate the wealth shift.
A central point or argument here is that the raw and superficial rhetoric of a "class war" creates a narrative in which the "poor" will always come out worse, mainly because the wealthy already have the resources they need to "win." The wealthy already have a community bond with the poor and middle class, who work in their factories, buy their products and services, and provide police and public services to protect that wealth. The problem is that the wealthy have too long been enabled to consider only their own insular needs and pleasures, without giving due regard for the "community" resources that generate and protect that insular circle of interests and lifestyles. It may be a challenge to persuade those who think only of themselves. But a shift in rhetoric and narrative, along with some practices, toward a sense that the wealthy help themselves when they participate in helping others.
