Many of the people who've done best since Reagan have been rent seekers like dentists, doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives. So far as business creator

Many of the people who've done best since Reagan have been rent seekers like dentists, doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives. So far as business creators and owners are concerned, it's fair to say that the issue of who "created" the wealth of a company like WalMart is a political question. Certainly some of that wealth was created by Sam Walton, but certainly some was created by his workers. It's obviously wrong if Sam gets 0% of the value of WalMart and also wrong if he gets 100% of the value of Wal*Mart -- there's no objectively right answer, only the issue of what different people can "get". In the current climate, I think wealth is more likely to "trickle up" than trickle down. If Joe Sixpack can afford some beer, I see how that helps the guys at the brewery have jobs and the owner of the brewery make a profit. Now, give the owner of a brewery some cash, and he ~might~ hire a worker, or he ~might~ buy a new Ferrari (creating jobs) or maybe he'll buy an old painting (bid up asset prices), buy real property (bid up asset prices, causing inflation) or buy stocks (bidding up asset prices.) This circle jerk might nominally transfer money to some other rich guy, but it doesn't create jobs, innovation or anything worthwhile. And jeeze, don't get started on the "taxes discourage the rich from hiring new workers" -- because you can write off anything you pay workers as a business expense. At the moment I'm thinking about what to do with a lifestyle business -- do I want to hire some new people? Personally, I see higher taxes on my income pushing me towards hiring somebody, growing equity, and pushing any possible taxes I might pay into the future.