They still pursue wealth, just not through the income venue.

The "Welfare Queen" exists largely in the imagination of the right. Even in areas of the US with relatively generous public assistance, the difference in standard of living for someone who relies solely on welfare versus someone with even a moderate income (much less "rich") is so large, no rational person would choose to live on welfare just to avoid the taxation that resulted from having a high income.

I certainly don't agree with tax policies designed to punish or discourage high incomes, but this is pure hyperbole.

The whole marginal thing must be really confusing. The problem is not that rich people would stop generating income - they won't. The problem is that marginal rates modify behavior, including changing how income is generated, where it is generated, etc. And the rich are exactly the people that have ample tools and opportunities to do that. If you earn nearly-minimal wage in some shop, you don't have many other options. If your taxes are raised, there's not much you can do other than spit and curse. If you're an investor, you have wide array of options where to invest, how to invest, etc. I know it sucks that it is always sunny in the rich man's world, but it's a reality. If whoever designs tax policy ignores it, he'd be unpleasantly surprised when projected tax income falls short of the target, and would have to slash the benefits programs or get deeper in debt.

Both statements are true. Taxing as a method of altering spending patterns is very well understood by economists. In the case of cigarettes, it seem sot have been quite effective since smoking rates in the Us have fallen to historic lows.

For some people there is. It's a marginal effect. Every time you alter the tax rate, some fraction of earners will change their behaviour.

There is. Living in California, marginal rates for a well-paid engineer can be 50% and more. Given that you give up half of the money, one's incentive to look for a side gigs and other supplemental income is significantly reduced. Of course, nobody turned down a raise saying "oh, taxes are high so I don't need it", but if additional income involves substantial marginal effort and risk, given high marginal tax it's just not worth it.

How do you figure? If I have the choice of increasing my labor by 20% (by some arbitrary metric, like labor hours per week) to increase my post-tax income by 20%, I might decide that is worth it and go for the higher income. If, on the other hand, I am currently at the top end of my current tax bracket, and the next highest bracket means that my 20% increase in labor will only increase my post-tax income by 10%, I might decide that isn't worth it and thus not go for the higher income.

Have you heard of the "dead weight loss" of taxation? It's a concept in economics.