It is generally thought that taxing the rich more will generally reduce the economy as the drivers of the economy, the rich will work more with more money in their back pocket. This is usually to do with them being able to spend more and thus boost consumtion. But prephaps it has other effects that counter act this.

From Stumbling and Mumbling. (Larson tax cuts being UK cut of top rate of income tax to 40% in 88)

So, let’s look at an alternative measure - labour productivity in the whole economy. If Lawson’s tax cuts had stimulated the rich to work harder, you’d expect this to have risen since 1988 partly for purely arithmetic reasons - the rich’s labour counts too - and partly because greater effort by managers stimulated their staff to work harder.
Except that it hasn’t. In the last 20 years, productivity has grown by 1.8% a year. In the 20 years before Lawson cut taxes - a period that included the appalling industrial relations of the 1970s remember - it grew 2% a year*.

This suggests an alternative theory. Lawson’s tax cuts allowed high earners to retire earlier - because they reached their target level of retirement wealth quicker, and because their savings were taxed more lightly. This deprived the economy of a cadre of experienced workers and managers, with the result that productivity has suffered.  

 

It is an interesting theory and puts much of the rights idea’s of tax cutting as wrong. Saying that in many ways instead of fueling the economy tax cuts can reduce the economies effectiveness. Certainly at the higher end anyway. Like to see what it says about people on lower incomes and lower tax bands. Also if you banned retiring what would happen