Honestly, its not about propoganda - I come to my conclusions by looking not at bits and pieces out of context, but examining the social and economic structures from which these events and phenominae sprout.

Also, something you should take note of - are the criteria used by the WHO to come up with these lists. Maybe later tonight or tomorrow I will take a look and unravel that WHO list in detail.

Saying that the top rates were higher in years past to pay for wars is also somewhat disingenuous, as noone will argue that taxing to pay for necessary national defense is in any way equivalent to "social redistribution of wealth". You are comparing apples and oranges, and that line of attack does not hold merit.

Another thing to remember, is that comparable with the lowering of tax rates on upper incomes - is the level at which new "rich folk" are made. IE: the more people are allowed to keep of their own money, the more people there are who come to have more money. If anything you have helped prove an important point held dear by fiscal conservatives.

And yet another angle to examine, is quality of living across classes.

But anyhow, you should recant that line of argument - and come up with a line of reasoning extolling high tax rates that does not involve using said taxes to pay for World Wars.

Besides, all lowering those rates did was help encourage the middle and upper middle classes. Truly wealthy folk have always had many means of hiding said wealth from the taxman, and that has not changes. Tycoons of old simply lived high on the hog on "company assets". Wining and dining were, and are, legit "business expenses".

Please explain which of my positions, other than that WHO chart, which I will address later once I find out what they are actually measuring, that tax argument was meant to annul.