KK,
I was not a true fan of Regan economics, but there is a lot of validity to reducing the top tax rate. I've spewed this out before, so I don't know why I bother, but ...

I work in real estate and deal with a lot of people who have capital invested in the same. Without the capital gains or reduced tax rate, these people will never sell. This means less economic activity for all of us, and, very possibly, higher rents and property costs. At best, they will borrow against the property and re-invest a smaller portion. By reducing the tax rate, people are much more willing to sell and reinvest. In addition, instead of taxing the revenue of the return on investment, we can tax the whole profit at the lower rate, which will result in higher tax payments overall.. If you think those who are wealthy do not consider this, you are sadly mistaken. Many of the decisions made in investment real estate are 100% tax driven.

In addition, think about the 90% tax burden on the wealthiest under Carter. If you were sitting in a room of CEO's and the boss said, well, we can take our corporate retreat in France this year, or we can give you the equivalent in a bonus, how would you vote based on a 90% tax rate. Have the company spend $20,000 on a luxerious, working vacation for you, or give you what will net you $2000.00 cash. Guaranty you most will vote for the vacation. Do you think Bill Gates would takeout money and be taxed 90% or would he leave it in the company, take a deferred compensation and let the company buy another corporate jet or retreat?

Common sense tells us trickle down works. The real question is and has been at what level.