Warren Buffet the democrat

I recently saw a video clip of Warren Buffett at a closed Hillary fund raising event at which he told the assembled loyalists why he was a democrat. Unfortunately the sound quality was such I couldn't understand a word he said but at the end of his little spiel he received a standing ovation from the paritsan worthies in attendance. I find this declaration of his to be not only strange but unsettling. As I understand from another blogger who actually heard the oracle from Omaha's words that what he said, which Hillary naturally loved and heartedly endorsed, was that if one is lucky enough to be among the 1% of the population with high incomes then it was obviously meant to be that one was entitled to a low tax rate. Buffett disagrees arguing that he and other high income people should be taxed much more than they are currently. There were no specifics here but simply that higher taxes were in order for higher income people. Soak the rich is, of course, a staple of Hillary's tax platform. Question: Haven't we been down this path before and didn't it fail to stimulate the economy and create jobs. As I recall, during and after WWII marginal tax rates were close to 90% for the highest income bracket and that caused JFK, a democrat, in 1960 to run on a platform to roll back taxes in order to get a stagnant economy going again. The argument then was the same as under Reagan and the supply siders of the early '80's: if the government in effect confiscates income above a certain level there are no savings with which to invest and create new businesses which stimulates the economy. Currently, we have almost no savings from the average wage earner, possibly even negative savings, and therefore to have a pool of capital available for investing in new businesses, it must come from the higher income earners. Many of these earners are small business owners organized as sub chapter S corporations which means their business incomes are taxed on the individual tax schedules that Hillary and Buffet want to see rise sharply, not the corporate schedule. Taxed away this income accrues to the government which redistributes it via various social safety net programs, the overall economy stagnates and ceases to create new jobs. We then have the Euro model of high unemployment, no growth, and economic stagnation but, we have the fairness of no huge disparity in after tax income like exists today. Who's right here, Hillary/Buffett, or the Reagan/Bush model. If she's elected we're bound to find out, aren't we?