Why bring back the Eisenhower "maximum income" tax rates on the rich? 91% on $2.5 million income or above + oil tax

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/07/trump-windfall-tax-big-oil-iran-war 

 The usual reason for imposing an ordinary income tax rate on short term gains is to tax investors and dealers in securities and futures contracts for whom the making of a market in commodities and stocks, and the speculation in their short-term price movements, is their ordinary business, such that the gains are, in fact, their ordinary income.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/higher-rate-short-term-capital-gains-questionable-policy-choice/ 

Only the top .1% of the US in annual income would pay this 91% tax rate that Eisenhower had from the Truman era.  

 The 91% top marginal income tax rate was enacted during the Truman administration under the Revenue Act of 1950, which raised individual rates to fund the Korean War. Right before this act, the top individual rate sat at roughly 82.1% ...In 1940, the top federal income tax rate on income above $200,000 was already 66 percent. As war spending accelerated through 1941 and 1943, rates climbed further. By 1944, the top marginal rate peaked at 94 percent. It remained above 90 percent — sitting at 91 percent for most of the period — continuously from 1944 through 1963.

 https://danismart.substack.com/p/a-note-on-the-numbers-what-the-91

First, the 91 percent rate kicked in on income above $200,000 — equivalent to roughly $2 to $3 million in today’s dollars. Second, fewer than 10,000 households in the entire country qualified. This was not a broad tax on success. It was a ceiling on the accumulation of dynastic wealth by a tiny fraction of the population, during a period when that fraction was doing extraordinarily well.

The economy, meanwhile, grew faster than it has at any point since....

 At 91 percent, that slice would generate approximately $1.0 to $1.3 trillion in taxes. The current 37 percent top rate applied to the same income generates roughly $400 to $520 billion. The difference — the additional revenue a restored top rate would theoretically produce — is somewhere between $600 billion and $800 billion per year.

 https://www.warresisters.org/war-tax-resistance/

That group estimates 80% of U.S. debt is spent on military funding and a new record of 58% of income tax will now go to the military in 2027!!

 

https://www.warresisters.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/FY2027-pie-chart-web.pdf 

 At least the top 5 to 10 major U.S. weapons contractor CEOs have total annual compensation packages well over $2 million, with median total packages ranging from $19 million to $23 million each

Phebe Novakovic (General Dynamics): ~$25.9 million

Kathy Warden (Northrop Grumman): ~$25.3 million

Christopher Calio (RTX): ~$24.8 million

Kelly Ortberg (Boeing): ~$23.5 million

Jim Taiclet (Lockheed Martin): ~$23.4 million

 The chief executive officers of the top five U.S. weapons contractors receive guaranteed base cash salaries between $1.2 million and $1.8 million annually, supplemented by short-term cash performance bonuses ranging from $2.8 million to $6.6 million per year