Very interesting talk, but I think he has a huge problem is this line: |Taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all Many people in the US (myself included) believe that increased taxes, whether on the rich or poor, will benefit all. It's far more likely that the money will be used to benefit politicians.
I think it comes down to what the benefit is. If the poor have their tax increased but the money ends up funding corporations and war/oil and not in educating and developing genuinely effective social programmes then it won't benefit them, whereas if the rich have their tax increased they just have a bit less money in their bank account. If the rich shoulder more of that burden (along with the appropriate allocation of resources to genuinely benefit all) then it gives more advantage and opportunity to more people. I think a big part of the problem is people don't see this in a historical context. If good policy was accepted and media and politicking played less of a role, it would still take decades to see a turnaround in fortunes (pun intended..) I hope that makes sense. Trying to make sure I explain myself but sometimes I'm not even sure what I think.