I understand your point and the good intentions behind it. Although, there is no such thing as "checking inequality", because, by what standard? Who decides how much is OK, and how is not? Do we vote on your ability to make money through VOLUNTARY trade is too much - because, do not forget that those historical examples you mentioned were not based on voluntary trade, those were based on feudal reigns, or despots, or other force and privilege based societies -, so now we can stop you to became "too unequal"?
You understand my point i think. I only say, that inequality is not morally bad or good, it just is. The same thing as lions eat gazelle is not bad or good either, it is just as it is. You, or me, or none can make a decision about someone else's life, or they wealth, because on what ground? On the ground of need? So i can morally justified to take away half your salary because i can not get enough staff to satisfy my need?
No bad intentions, just asking :-)
Society decides. In the Scandinavian countries the people voluntary accept high taxes because they choose that over extreme rich & poor.
You don't take away my salary. Progressive tax is designed to tax people more at higher income brackets. You are welcomed to make as much money as you want just the more you make the higher your taxes. So if I make $250K/ year and you make $50K my effective tax rate is higher
The US has such a system but it's actually easier for rich people to avoid taxes through business ownership & capital gains. I really don't know much about Sweden's tax system. Only that income tax is higher than US. But their corporate tax is lower than US. Many US companies use foreign tax havens because of this. I support the lowering of US corporate tax rates so some of that tax money can be repatriated