Historical studies show only a small disincentive to earn income when taxes rise

NYT - That Wishful Thinking About Tax Rates

This slightly dated piece was written by economist Christina D. Romer, who studies the effects of income tax cuts and increases. There are a few (oft-repeated) beliefs about taxes, incentives, and revenues that she discussses:
Belief 1: Tax increases will decrease the incentive to earn more "at the margins", in short, decreasing economic activity. While this seems to be common sense, history shows very little correlation, if there is one at all. Of course, increases may indeed cause a decrease in incentive but if so, that effect is made up for by other factors. This economist's particular study was for a period between WWI and WWII, where tax rates went up on the super-rich: reported income decreased but only slightly. In other words, the rich didn't stop working because their marginal tax rate went up from 63% to 79%.
Belief 2: Tax cuts will pay for themselves by stimulating economic activity and thereby raising incomes to be taxed (albeit at a lower base), creating equal or greater revenues. Historical data again do not show this to be anywhere near the case. In fact, reported income seems only mildly sensitive to tax cuts.
The conclusion of this piece suggests that modest tax increases may have a modest affect on reported income, but not one that isn't tolerable in order to fund government.