>>Do you think that the guy who makes 10 times more than you should pay 65% tax? :)

I have no problem with an ascending scale as income increases. My reason is that perceived wealth is in comparison to the Jonses next door. As long as everybody is on the same basis, the comparison of affluence still works no matter what the tax rate is. A group of businessmen buddies each earning the notional $250K will have similar buying power and they will all feel richer than the man on $60K even if the difference is taxed at a much higher rate. If Joe Bloggs can increase his sales and make $500K then he and his golfing buddies will know and feel the difference- even if the increase is taxed at 65%. It's all relative. And when Joe shops for his new Mercedes, prices must reflect the buying power of the target purchasers so he will still get his S class even if his last $100K attracts astronomical tax. IMHO this is workable unless incomes get completely out of proportion or certain sectors are able to step outside the model by sneakery. At present we are seeing both, meaning that more and more people start to wonder about the benefits of wealth distribution. it's easy to blame "socialists" for this, but they aren't the ones who set up the selfish distorted systems that encourage revolution.

There may be other reasons to set varying rates. IMHO it makes sense to incentivize businesses that create jobs, creating a taxation advantage for the mostly small businesses if they keep employing. Many of their principals will be amongst the $250K golfing buddies. Now you may see an anomaly in which a lawyer earning $250K actually has less spending power than a $250K business owner who hired staff and paid less tax. However, this is the price the lawyer pays for keeping the Bolsheviks off the streets since he isn;t like to create jobs where it matters. Most likely the lawyer will just charge more fees so they end up with $350K that taxes back to a similar position and the balance is restored.