Your simplistic comparisons between the United States and France on the eve of the Revolution assert some critically false information typically fomented and pushed by the political left.
In several places you assert that a "disenfranchised minority pays a major share of the national income (i.e. tax income)" and "the wealthiest citizens benefit from 'tax immunities ' and end up paying nothing" among others.
But, the Tax Foundation indicates that the top 1% paid "a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90% combined (29.9 percent)" in 2020. That's after the Trump Tax Cuts which we were told incessantly by our media overlords that they were "disproportionally beneficial to the rich".
So, unless that "disenfranchised minority" with whom you refer that "pays a major share of the national income (i.e. tax income)" refers to the top 1%, it would seem your assertion is incorrect. Similarly, I don't see how paying "97% of individual income taxes" is paying next to nothing.
In fact, from the same article, "the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of ALL [emphasis mine] individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent".
So, how much more would you have them pay?
That's the proverbial "fair share" question which proponents of higher taxes generally refuse to answer. Because if they did, their "fair share" today will not be enough tomorrow and if it's not tomorrow it will be the next day, or the next, or the next. At some point the incompetence of politicians and the bloated, inefficient federal government's incessant need to spend more will catch up with the country.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent%20paid,50%20percent%20(4.0%20percent).
Similarly, you imply that the French Minister who proposed some taxation reforms was some Bernie Sanders-like Crusader who was simply trying to get the rich to pay "their fair share".
Many might not translate the French text of your link. I don't play those games. From your link:
"Calonne intended that the assembly would quickly give positive opinions on its proposals, which, although moderate, constituted a broad and coherent whole. The 'Warning' it publishes on 31 March aims both to affirm an INNOVATIVE DESIRE FOR TAX REFORM [emphasis mine] with the territorial subsidy and stamping, BUT IT ALSO WANTS TO REASSURE THE PRIVILEGED. THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN THE TOTAL TAX [emphasis mine] and above all the arbitrariness and unequal distribution that characterized the twentieth will be addressed.
Your paragraph also promotes the leftist notion that taxing the rich only causes them to "suffer" and the rich will do nothing to cause the non-rich to share in if not ameliorate the rich's "suffering".
Human nature is not like that. The idea that if you change something people will always act the way they did before you changed that thing is a nonsensical, leftist concept.
Here, rich guy. I'm going to stand here and punch you in your arm. Rich guy to leftist "That hurts. I am out of here." Or, rich guy to leftist "If you keep punching me, I'm going to start punching my employees or I'm going to position my employees between me and you so that they are the ones getting punched".
You also give the impression that social mobility in the US is "defined by birth and therefore by luck" and "nearly nonexistent".
Personally I prefer capitalism to any other economic form practiced now or in the past. I assert there are factors beyond birth and luck that greatly affect social mobility.
While various "rankings" put social mobility in the US anywhere from the mid-to-late 20s compared to other countries, there seems to be a consistent position on factors involving changing social-economic standing. Here is a list with which I pretty much agree:
1. Motivation
2. Achievements and Failures
3. Education
4. Skills and Training
5. Migration
6. Industrialization
7. Urbanization
8. Legislation
9. Politicization
10. Modernization
If you want to improve social mobility in the US –
Stop supporting politicians or movements that claim personal motivation is inferior to ethnicity and demographics in social mobility.
Stop supporting politicians or movements that blame successes and failures on demographics rather than promoting personal responsibility and equality of opportunity.
Stop supporting politicians or movements that enrich their teacher's union donors at the expense of students, that promote an educational emphasis on social justice and age inappropriate matters, and who oppose school choice that would allow students to move on from failing public schools to more beneficial educational institutions.
Stop supporting politicians or movements that result in a massive influx of low-skilled, uneducated workers with whom young, inexperienced, and/or uneducated citizens will have to compete with for entry-level jobs. This prevents them from gaining job skills and experience needed for social mobility.
Stop supporting politicians or movements that attempt to legislate "equity". The best illustration of the fallacy of "equity" I can think of occurred in a political cartoon.
Imagine three kids of varying heights trying to look over the outfield fence to view a baseball game. The left frame represents equality – each boy is standing on the same size box which allows them to see over the fence and watch the game. Naturally, the tallest boy has his head further above the fence than the other two.
The second frame represents "equity". In that frame, the tallest boy stands in a hole, and the middle boy stands on the ground, while the shortest boy stands on a box. The result is "equity" in terms of their height. But, none of them can see over the fence.
Stop supporting politicians or movements that are more concerned with consolidating and keeping their own power rather than passing (or better yet eliminating) legislation that incentivizes/legislation that impedes economic growth.
The authors list "modernization" as a factor which influences social mobility. But, to do so, those impacted must adapt to the new technology. A career fast food employee who knows how to "pick a picture" on a cash register and little else won't really be employable if the company modernizes to an automated Point of Sale concept.
Bottom line: I think the US is different from France prior to the Revolution in more ways than it is alike. We have problems if left unchecked might might lead to a Revolution. But, we are not there yet. Our Constitutional Republic with its checks and balances, should prevent us from getting there. God help the world if they don't. I would hate to imagine the world without the United States.
