mostly people are not convinced by your view of the essential dynamic role played in the economy by a tiny minority of the extremely wealthy
Maybe to back this point up a little more, if the objective was to make the wealthy pay more tax, I would support a wealth tax. (and of course I already support the reimposition of the so-called death tax.) imho, passing down billion dollar fortunes like the Kennedy's, the Rockefellers, the Forbes,,,is not really consistent with the principles of the US. So with the addition of a wealth tax to get the extra tax dollars, a tax that is even more targeted at the wealth group you think should be paying more taxes, and doesn't have the economic disincentives of high marginal tax rates--doesn't this put us on the same side on this one?
and PS: the top 1000--5000 have a wannabe group below them. and their hopes are not going to be helped by 60--80% marginal tax rates. Nor are all of the entrepreneurs that are starting new companies, and the people they recruit to their managment teams.
You (naïvely?) continue to present a starry-eyed vision of the American way that the rest of us don't see. There's a fundamental myth of the rugged, hard-working individual fighting his way upwards here, combined with the rationalisation that this leads (like the invisible hand of the market) to maximum utility for all, that has a powerful hold on people's imaginations, but doesn't actually produce the goods (ie maximum utility for all). In fact it produces a harshly competitive society with considerable and widening inequality. But then, we'd be back into a debate on inequality, poverty, social mobility, in which neither of us is going to modify their position, isn't that true?
I don't see the problem for the economy of a progressive income tax combining a granular structure - a larger number of income brackets and rates rather than the flattening trend we've seen for a couple of decades - and a higher marginal rate than 40%.
