I've been reading Irving Krisol & other conservatives lately. I agree with their idea of "property-owning democracy" (widespread distribution of property ownership) as ideal. But they fall short because they fail to support any institution that fosters property-owning democracy.
Kristol falsely believes that economic growth in itself fosters property-owning democracy, while opposing progressive income tax. In reality, high top marginal income tax rates encouraged CEOs and capitalists to raise wages for their employees rather than pocketing new profits.
The progressive income tax is an institution that helps foster property-owning democracy by driving up wages and making wealth trickle down as the economy grows. Since Republicans have cut the top tax rates, wages have stopped rising and new wealth has all accumulated at the top.
Supply-siders saw that economic growth led to better conditions for the people at the bottom as wealth trickled down. They failed to realize that it was tax policy that caused wealth to trickle down. High top marginal tax rates (at 70% or more) served as a maximum wage policy.
Many conservatives advocated "property-owning democracy" & supported robust welfare programs (e.g. universal catastrophic insurance, universal basic income or minimum income guarantee), but they also helped to dismantle the institutions that made such things feasible.
While Kristol, Friedman, and others argued for robust welfare programs, they didn't want the taxes that were necessary to pay for them. At the same time, they dismantled the tax system that made wealth trickle down and was leading us towards property-owning democracy.
Distributism, though it was always a fringe conservative movement, took the "property-owning democracy" seriously and recognized that progressive taxation was necessary in order to create and maintain such a thing.
Hilaire Belloc's support for "differential taxation" stands out:
distributistreview.com/the-differenti…
distributistreview.com/the-differenti…
