It's not reasonable; it's quite perverse -- you seem to be confusing the Nazis with the opposing parties of the time. The opposing parties were for the elimination of class differences while the Nazis where explicitly for preserving them.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism :
This involved the idea of uniting rich and poor Germans for a common national project without eliminating class differences (a concept known as "Volksgemeinschaft", or "people's community"),
Essentially, the Nazis suppressed class based anger and encouraged homicidal racism and xenophobia. The Nazis were the defenders, not the oppressors, of the wealthy.
Yeah... I don't think you understand what the words "certainly" or "reasonable" mean if you feel that statement counts as "certainly reasonable".
That train of thought seems... frightening? (I really hope you didn't make that comment seriously.)
Edit: And as pointed out in the article, many pay less than their share in the current tax regime. Many high-income earners pay a lower effective tax rate than low-income earners
Unless you're referring to an alternate definition of SJ.
Those who earned deserve it. Those who didn't done. How do you know whether someone earned their success? Well, they're successful. Calvinism, just world fallacy, circular logic, and on and on.
Finally Successful does not necessarily mean it is earned success. Inheritance (or just being born into an upper class family and all of its benefits) is not earned and can in many cases lead to being 'successful'.
Reducing to absurdity seems to be your only way to respond to anyone in this thread. It makes you sound pretty trollish and makes your comments hard to take seriously.