No they don't. They're taxed on profit, not revenues. And I've never heard a business owner say they are going to close the shop early because they made too much money.
You should heed your own advice, particularly here: "Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is always good fiscal policy". You tried to make a philosophical argument inside an economic one and you failed both. Why? For one, this isn't a philosophical issue. For two, there is no evidence that it's good fiscal policy to do that, as we've seen in Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona over the last couple years.
It has everything to do with it. The state collects less revenue because of income tax cuts. The state has a budget deficit. The state has a balanced budget amendment. So in order for the state to fulfill its balanced budget amendment, it must cut government services (which Kansas did to the bone) and/or raise revenues from other sources in order to meet its obligation. That is done mostly by increase excise taxes -which Kansas did by increasing the sales tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax and by raising fees like tuition at KSU or higher Medicaid co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles. The state can also cut spending, which Kansas did as well, going so far as to close schools early so the 1% can get their tax break. Kansas literally traded their kids' education so a small handful of rich people could be even richer. That's why Brownback's allies lost in 2016, and why moderate, potty-trained Republicans are debating a repeal of the tax cuts.
Worrying about 50 year long-term obligations in the midst of an economic recovery is stupid and transparent. It's obvious you don't care about debt or deficits, and are using manufactured deficits and debt as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to.