Lemme splain it to ya...

It seems that in the 230+ years since Adam Smith was around, many of our presidential candidates still don't understand that by raising taxes on the high-income earners (entrepreneurs), one provides a huge disincentive for them to not produce like they otherwise would. And when the prime movers don't produce, the ones who pay the most in the end are the folks at the lower end of the income spectrum, the workers, the employees, the less-well-educated, the unskilled, the poor.

So why would certain presidential candidates recommend something that badly hurts those they claim to represent? The honest answer is that they aren't very smart. Even most of the poor employees realize that pain rolls downhill. A business owner who can produce with little friction will hire more employees, pay them more, and be happier. A business owner with an increasingly heavy tax burden will be more likely to lay off people, or cut pay or benefits, or go out of business. All of which hurt the little guy.

In a capitalist society, everyone is better off with a wealth gap between the rich and poor, especially the poor. They have much more opportunity to rise up into the middle class. A society with no wealth gap is the epitome of communism. With no incentive to produce, no one does produce, and you wind up with food lines, starvation, unrest, and probably a dictator. Everyone is worse off.

The key to the wealth of a society is the ability of the prime movers (the top 1%) to produce whatever they are good at. It is the politician's job to recognize the value of the prime movers and stay out of their way. That means keep taxes low for the entrepreneur.