[ontIgnoreRealit]

56% is a sane top tax rate if you feel that you make enough money and you feel that you want to contribute to the infrastructure and services that the government provides.

56% is a low top marginal tax rate. The United States had a top marginal income tax rate that was higher than 56% between 1932 and 1980. It was 90% between 1950 and 1963.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...

[jandrewrogers]

To be fair though, the effective net tax rate in the US was not much different than today back then. That 90% tax rate was essentially fictional in that no one paid anything close to it after deductions and loopholes. It was theater so that politicians could claim the wealthy were paying high taxes.

Reducing the marginal tax rates on income in the US was largely revenue neutral due to the incremental elimination of loopholes, credits, and deductions concurrent with those reductions. If we actually reverted to the tax policies of 1950s I do not think you would be impressed with the distribution of taxes paid.

Ironically, the low marginal tax rates we have today reflect the historical truth more closely than the nominally high rates of the past.

[Chrono]

My personal opinion is that anything over 50% is too much. If I work hard and earn a lot of money I should at least be allowed to keep half.

That said, to reach the top income bracket and get a tax between 52-59.9% (Depending on where in Sweden you live) you have to earn somewhere around $80k/yr. Not entire sure about the number but it is in that region. I wouldn't consider that very wealthy, especially not if you live in Stockholm, expensive city to live in.

[toadi]

Why no tax on making money from money. These high tax rates are on money not an people with a lot of money making money...

[fckin]

Exactly, just look at the Great Depression. 63% throughout. Very sane.