Bababooyee, I find it entertaining that for you, "common good" means anything evil (genocide) and "individuality" means anything good (anti-slavery). I hate to break this to you, but anti-slavery, women's lib, worker rigths, etc. were all liberal movements (I love how conservatives point to Lincoln and claim him as theirs, forgetting that in 1860, the Republican party was the liberal one). And they all essentially took power away from white man, to redistribute it among blacks, women, and lower-class workers. So this redistributing was bad and evil? But I forget, you would rather see the US an aristocracy, since you love the hereditary super-rich the way you do.
I'm sure the French aristocrats were convinced they were doing what was best for their people, right up until the moment they went to the guillotines.
The middle class owes its existence to the very progressive tax rates of the first half of the last century here in the US. And as they've been chipped away, so has the middle class.
I still don't see the comparison between Pol Pot and progressive taxation. He took advantage of a power vacuum created by the US destabilizing the country. I don't think progressive taxation is what gave him his start. Especially seeing as how Cambodia didn't even have income tax of any sort until the 1990's. So no, I'm not seeing your connection. Because there isn't one.
Here's a link on Cambodia and personal income tax. Money (pardon the pun) quote:
Even with this high exemption threshold,
progressivity is low and the highest marginal rate is only 20 percent. This rate begins to apply only when income is higher than the equivalent of US$ 90,000 per year. For an annual income equivalent to US$ 100,000, the average tax rate is still below 9 percent.
By any standards, this is extremely low.
http://www.ocm.gov.kh/c_tax1.htm
So, I apologize- Low progressivity, not none.