Since 1950 the amount yielded to the federal government out of GDP has remained virtually constant at about 19.5% - NO MATTER WHAT THE MARGINAL TAX RATE. This is known as Hauser's Law. While the top individual tax rates have varied from about 28% to 91%, the yield to government is virtually identical.

What this means is that no matter how much you try to soak the rich the federal government just can't seem to get more than about 20% of GDP. This confirms the Laffer curve, which is more of a theoretical conception the argues that as you increase the tax rate beyond a certain point, the economy actually shrinks so much that total government revenue due to taxes begins to fall. Because Hauser's Law is based on empiracal observation, it is a stronger argument against raising taxes, and a terrific argument for lowering them. If you want total government revenue to rise, lower the tax rate.

This is really no big shock to supply side economists. Increasing the apparent unfairness of taxes causes people to hide their income, to reduce the time spent working, or to leave the jurisdiction. And guess what, the wealthiest of our citizens are the one's who find it easiest to leave.

If the economy is slowing down, lower taxes. If you want to eventually fund the unfunded debt - lower taxes and grow out of it.

This might be counter-intuitive for statist types who believe that the only way to get more milk out of a cow is to strangle it, but it is no surprise to free-marketeers.