I feel like this is a straw man arguement - There is a presupposition that the only purpose of tax-cuts here is trickle down effects. There is also a concern of

I feel like this is a straw man arguement - There is a presupposition that the only purpose of tax-cuts here is trickle down effects. There is also a concern of increasing inequality. Modern Inequality is _not_ driven by tax rate. The tax system in the USA is a income tax (the only thing authorized in the constitution). What folks here have created is wealth that is relatively il-liquid. What has changed is that interest rates are low enough that the wealthy have used loans against their stock to generate revenue. This is also because of the government working to keep interest rates artificially low. On the flip side, the poor in America pay virtually no federal income tax, and rarely state income once tax credits and rates are worked in. So who would increasing the tax rate hurt? The middle class - upper middle class in particular. They don't have the capacity to do investment backed loans to circumvent income tax, nor do they qualify for reduced tax rates (often zero at a federal tax level) for poorer Americans. I suspect the point where tax rates for the rich matters sailed a long time ago. It was effective in some places, ineffectual in some other places. It certainly was part of the financial breakthrough in the 1980s, but had other problems. So instead, a more basic question - what is a fair level of taxation given equal protection clauses in the USA? and also given that we don't want to disincentivize people working to better their own financial situation.