I was just wondering your interpretation. i have seen a lot of people use this kind of data to show what you are trying to show that, if we increase the top tax bracket we will reduce the wage gap (not sure if this is the correct term)

but i have also when trying to do the same thing you have run into lots of people who say high taxes just cause people to move elsewhere.

I have played a few economic games to know it is a little of both. and both people can be satisfied, which it seems like your implying that at 40% it is perfect. not too high of tax and yet not too low.

however i myself do lean, we really need a maximum wage. :) if we have a minimum peoples time is worth working then we need to set a maximum one person can value their time. thus i feel that a new bracket. any income /dividends/ lottery winnings/ over ten million should be taxed at 100% . having a min wage with no max wage seems strange to me. but i am an engineer and dealt with op-amps, and hitting the rails; so i like systems to have bounds a set min and a set max!