Violent revolutions are conducted either by the court (of the king) who use the desperation of the very poor; or by envious almost-wealthies likewise able to rabble-rouse the very poor.
The problem you have with your theory is: we are all very rich against the "revolt wealth" standard. Greece, post-crisis, lost 25% of its GDP. If that had occurred in almost any decade in human history there would be a violent revolt. Today a loss of 25% GDP goes from very rich, to quite rich.
Almost everyone who could revolt is far too wealthy to risk it. The european poor arent going to risk their benefits to revolt against taxpayers. These benefits constitute an insurmountable wealth-floor on revolution.
The rich can do whatever they like, envy isn't enough here.
The elite landowning gentry unhappy with British taxation, not the colonists per se, most of whom were quite happy to remain British or were undecided on the matter. Popular support came later by means of effective propaganda, such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," not grassroots sentiment.
The "I deserve this" ideology is a great danger to the super-wealthy because it blinds them to the more profound truth: unbalanced games are not fun and ultimately fail. Arguing against game balance because you've used (maybe even discovered) degenerate strats to acquire a huge resource lead is immature and short-sighted because if the game itself fails none of those resources will have any value.