SupplySider,
I don't know where the evidence is. I'm only offering an open-mind to all of the possible solutions.
Fair enough! And welcome to FreeRepublic. I enjoy differing points of view that are respectfully presented.
Here's a bit of evidence against soaking the rich. Around the world, a higher standard of living correlates with a lower level of governmental interference in the economy. The main way governments interfere with economies is through taxes.
For example, Hong Kong is a tiny island with few natural resources and a relatively (to its land size) large population. They have a low flat tax and a very high standard of living. Africa is a large continent rich in natural resources with a relatively small population. Governments take a huge portion of the wealth, and they enjoy a very low standard of living. In between we find Europe (higher taxes, higher unemployment) and the US (lower taxes, lower unemployment).
In this country we enjoyed economic booms after Kennedy and Reagan lowered the top rates. Russia instituted a low flat tax a few years ago. Some much more revenue came in that they lowered the rate again. Their economy has been booming.
I honestly think that top Democrat politicians know all this, but argue for taxing the rich anyway. They believe the American people are stupid, and that stirring them to envy will get them votes. If they really believe that the effect of a high top tax rate is more humane than the effect of the rich investing that money instead, why does Ms Heinz-Kerry shelter most of her income and pay the lowest rate (only 13-14%) she can?
"Tax the rich" is a cynical propaganda ploy disguised as prudent public policy.