would be to increase the Top Marginal Tax Rate. Cenk, I know you always talk about how insanely high the rate was prior to Reagan (71-74% an 91% under Eisenhower), but it needs to kept in context.

We can't just generically say "wow, that sounds really high!" in an arbitrary fashion. We have to consider, for example, what the pros and cons were, not just theoretically, but in practice. And back in the Eisenhower days the top tax rate didn't kick in until *after* someone had made their first 3.2 million in today's dollars.

Let's say we had that today with a 60 or 70% top rate. Does anyone really believe that it would be difficult to find high quality, qualified and motivated people to run companies for 3 million a year (or 1 or 2 million for that matter)?  A top marginal tax rate would not only generate much needed tax revenue to fund critical programs, rebuild our infrastructure and help pay down our massive debt, but it would also discourage the rich from treating Wall Street as the world's largest casino.

Consider this: "...In 1970 the gap between the top 100 CEOs' average pay and the pay of average workers was 45 to 1 ($296,170 to $6,542), reflecting the restraints of lingering New Deal financial controls and mores. As those controls weakened, the gap increased to 127 to 1 by 1980. As deregulation, tax cuts, and the union bashing of the Reagan era took hold, the gap jumped to 321 to 1 by 1990. In 2000... the ratio of CEO pay to the average workers' pay hit an obscene level of 1,510 to 1. And then by 2006...it climbed to a whopping 1,723 to 1 ($50,877,450 to $29,529)..."

Does anyone think the increasingly outrageous pay disparity since Reagan is a coincidence? If the top marginal tax rate was higher, much less money would be dumped into short term 'ruin the company later for short term profit now' executives and instead it would be pumped back into the business. Plus it would help us avoid the increasingly dangerous bank failures and boom and bust cycles that we only see when top marginal tax rates are low, and instead we'd see steady, sustainable growth.