Blaming the Beatles or George Harrison's song for any sort of lack of social resources due to a lack of taxation is just plain rubbish. I think 5% WAS much too small. A penalty for making money as George once said and he was right. I don't begrudge the Beatles for making money in the least. Those that made money off them made far more. The Beatles gave of themselves and they gave a lot. I'm very thankful that they existed and that they gave that time such a beautiful excitement and opened minds to so much. There was nothing like them and I doubt there ever will be again.
It is important to ask a few questions. First off, why would any sane person argue for more taxation on income? Why? How did the U.S. manage to survive very nicely prior to the enactment of an income tax? This tax came paired with the enactment of the Federal Reserve which taxed every dollar printed by charging interest for their use.
Does it not occur to anyone that the PTB simply do not want to put out money for social anything regardless of whether the money is there or not? It is shown time after time that money is there for wars and destruction, propping up big banks with trillions, subsidizing already profitable companies, leasing federal lands for a variety of profitable purposes for next to nothing, giving away patent rights for pharmaceutical development with research paid for by the government. Truly, this list of income draining activities could go on forever. And that is potential income that could easily provide a myriad of social services and opportunities and make life better for everyone.
But those aren't the choices being made by those that reside in government. And they wouldn't make those choices if they were taxing the rich at 99.9 %.
It would just be even more money put out for wars and more expensive weapons systems. More death, destruction and domination.
Also, the California proposition mentioned in this article was necessary. I lived there at that time. It was a property tax measure designed to limit property taxes to a more fair rate. At the time, real estate values were climbing dramatically and property taxes were based on current market value. This had the effect of pricing people out of their homes because they couldn't afford the taxes. Again, in California there are myriad ways to provide tax income rather than doing something like this. It's just absurd.
I liked the last paragraph of this article. I'm going to check the link out for that interview. I've said the same thing many times. That was a remarkable time for England. That country was put on the map because of that time. It made itself known for something other than wars to support empire. Yeah, England really swung in that time and it sure doesn't anymore. But it's not because they don't tax the rich at 95%.