One of the problems is the system is unfair in its current state and you're advocating making it even worse. Taking 70 percent of a person's income will discourage them from trying to be successful. And we don't need progressive taxation to begin with. Several states have no income tax. That's about as fair as you can get.
And what is wrong with people "making a mint and resting on their laurels"? What business does the government have dictating (pun intended) what a person does with whatever that person has legally earned?
Progressive taxation makes the most sense in terms of the practical payment of necessary tax dollars. The rich have more money to spare on taxes b/c they earn more. The poor and middle class do not have such an advantage.
Judge Smehls was right: "The world needs ditch diggers too!" And the world does need laborers. Not everyone can be boss. Rags to riches through hard work happens, but not everyone is fundamentally suited to achieve such success.
You gravely underestimate the determination of the rich/successful when you state that they will be discouraged from being successful. Whether these Type A people are proving themselves for salary or notoriety, they will always strive to the top. The reward is achievement. Smaller recompense for that is not a deal killer.
The 80-90% tax bracket in the 1950s did not dissuade success. In fact that decade was extremely prosperous--rock 'n roll, the Golden Age of Hollywood, the Beats, the GDP grew steadily, IBM grew, the auto industry exploded.
As far as the government's legislating tax policy...I used to agree with you. But the idea of keeping individuals viable as contributing members of society also has its appeal. Do you want a group of FOPS living off interest or do you want productive members of society?
Note that the above is a policy. We do live in a free society. There is no law against becoming rich and retiring young in this country.
