Wall Street Journal op-ed:  The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate, by Peter Schiff:

Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever
telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate
and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice
is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the
wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more
"investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for
all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out
that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the
rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.

True enough, the top marginal income-tax
rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the
share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially
remained flat since then.

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned
14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income
taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and
their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has
fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the
wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower-
and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than
in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were
essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast
majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today. …

It's hard to determine how much otherwise taxable income disappeared
through tax shelters in the 1950s. As a result, direct comparisons
between the 1950s and now are difficult. However, it is worth noting
that from 1958 to 2010, the taxes paid by the top 3% of earners, as a
percentage of total personal income (which can't be reduced by
shelters), increased to 3.96% from 2.72%, while the percentage paid by
the bottom two-thirds of filers fell to 0.51% in 2010 from 2.7%. This
starker division of relative tax burdens can be explained by the
inability of upper-income groups to shelter income.

It is a testament to the shallow nature
of the national economic conversation that higher tax rates can be
justified by reference to a fantasy—a 91% marginal rate that hardly any
top earners paid.

In reality, tax policies that diminish
the incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners and
investors will not spur economic improvement. Such policies will,
however, satisfy the instincts of those who want to "stick it to the
rich." Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well.