[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Perhaps they realised it’s not a good policy?

Citation needed that it's not a good policy. Parent comment explained why it was good, and your reply is "or perhaps it was actually bad".

There's a simpler explanation as to why it was rolled back: the people with the most money and power didn't like it and wanted it gone, and worked over time to accomplish this.

[simianwords]

so it could be two reasons

1. 90% tax is a net good for society but big bad capitalists colluded to reduce it in every country independently

or

2. 90% is actually a bad policy and every country independently adopted against it including Nordic countries, China, India, USA

you decide which one is more likely.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

It's not "90% tax" it's 90% or similar tax rate at the highest band, which most people will never reach.

Despite you showing your bias by phrasing option 1 to look childish, I think it's more or less what happened, actually. It doesn't take much "collusion", just greed and short-sighted self-interest from greedy, short-sighted self-interested people with influence to wield.

And you till haven't cited how that 1) this definitely didn't happen and 2) high tax rates in the highest band is a bad idea.