Just as refresher, I'm going to link to a graph showing the top marginal income rate in the U.S. since 1913. I don't remember the thread, a link to a graph like this was posted several days ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg
I noticed something then, and I've been thinking about it since. The two worst economic downturns of the last century came after a number of years of, by historical standards, a low top marginal tax rate. While those eras of low marginal tax rates were very good economic times for the most part, the end came with a near collapse of the financial system, when investment risk and reckless greed finally caught up with investors. By contrast, nothing of the sort happened when the marginal tax rate was high.
Now, I understand the objections to a high marginal tax rate with respect to fairness and disincentives, but something has occurred to me, and I'd be interested to see if this makes sense to others, too.
Here's my hypothesis - the marginal tax rate on the highest incomes should be fairly high because it reduces the reward that can be gained from reckless greed, which reduces the risk to the overall economy. I don't have any evidence other than that graph and some thinking about this to support it, and maybe it's wrong. But I think it's something worth considering.
And before there are objections to the contrary, I'd like to say that I think it's perfectly fine for people to make lots of money. That's not what this is about. I've always thought the 70-90% range where the top income tax has been for most of the century was way too high, and while I am for a progressive tax rate, I think the 35-40% we've been at for the last 20 years or so is reasonable. But now, I'm thinking maybe there is a good economic reason to put more of a brake on income at the highest levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg
I noticed something then, and I've been thinking about it since. The two worst economic downturns of the last century came after a number of years of, by historical standards, a low top marginal tax rate. While those eras of low marginal tax rates were very good economic times for the most part, the end came with a near collapse of the financial system, when investment risk and reckless greed finally caught up with investors. By contrast, nothing of the sort happened when the marginal tax rate was high.
Now, I understand the objections to a high marginal tax rate with respect to fairness and disincentives, but something has occurred to me, and I'd be interested to see if this makes sense to others, too.
Here's my hypothesis - the marginal tax rate on the highest incomes should be fairly high because it reduces the reward that can be gained from reckless greed, which reduces the risk to the overall economy. I don't have any evidence other than that graph and some thinking about this to support it, and maybe it's wrong. But I think it's something worth considering.
And before there are objections to the contrary, I'd like to say that I think it's perfectly fine for people to make lots of money. That's not what this is about. I've always thought the 70-90% range where the top income tax has been for most of the century was way too high, and while I am for a progressive tax rate, I think the 35-40% we've been at for the last 20 years or so is reasonable. But now, I'm thinking maybe there is a good economic reason to put more of a brake on income at the highest levels.