Are you going to cite the laffer curve or something? That thing is so over-rated. Seriously, the amount the economy would lose in circulated money as a result of the reduced spending on the part of the top income bracket is no where remotely close to the amount that would be gained in revenue if they were taxed 80%. And unless the tax level is 100% is isn't going to remove the incentive to work.
Secondly, commerce has an exaggerated historical role in innovation. Between people who invented for the hell of it or out of necessity (many who were not wealthy), and inventions that emerged as the result of government initiative, you have the lion's share of major innovations in human history.
And when a benefit to the economy appears to take place in the absence of these things it notably affects almost solely a wealthy minority, and not the unwealthy majority, meaning most people have no reason to give a crap about the supposed economic success taking place.
And I'm going to be the first to admit that because this was ad hoc and because I am tired that my counter to your post was sub-par. It wasn't even that good. Good enough to raise points on how you're wrong, but still not very good. My point being that there is some really good material that extensively discusses your mistakes. But of all the stuff you could be directed to you, I just advise you to read the work of Mancur Olson. It may really learn you something about human behavior in a social context.