An old taxation idea, modified

When I was younger, in college, and more confident in the ability of government to do good, I suggested that a simple way to level earnings and provide government more revenue would be to impose a confiscatory tax on earnings higher than the salary paid the president of the United States, which was then, I believe, $200,000. Now Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia has proposed a slightly wimpier version of what I suggested 40 years ago. Webb's bill would impose a 50 percent tax on bank bonuses that exceed the president's salary (now $400,000).

I never heard a cogent argument against my long-ago proposal. Sure, it would be darn near impossible to achieve, politically, and it might have some impact on wealthier people's willingness to work harder and invest more. But, overall, it would affect a bare minimum of people, and the macroeconomic impact would be negligible. People can live a pretty luxurious life on the salary of the president of the United States, and it's hard for anyone to claim that his job is more difficult, more stressful or more important than the president's. So the downside is that the sale of multi-million-dollar homes, private jets and big yachts would suffer. The economy would survive.

Webb's ploy would affect only bankers and would apply only to bonuses, not to salaries. Voters are angry about the outlandish bonuses being paid at some big banks. Some of those bonuses make the president's salary look paltry. The fact that Webb ignores the outlandish pay of other corporate titans shows that his bill is aimed more at disaffected voters than at bankers or at correcting any economic faults. I doubt that the bill will get any further than my wild idea, circa 1969 or so.