Deep Dudu wrote in :

On Sat, 28 May 2011 12:19:55 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Deep Dudu wrote in :

On Sat, 28 May 2011 08:31:16 -0700, Peter Franks
wrote:

Why should the wealthy pay more than their fair share?

They aren't. Notice what it was for years after WWII when our
economy
was booming.

Do you think that was all due to taxes on the wealthy?

Yes. Tax the hell out of the wealthy an invest directly in the
infrastructure then you stimulate the economy.


IOw, you feel that if the wealthy had not been taxed at such a high rate,
the post war boom would have never happened? It is all due to that high
tax rate and no euphoria from winning a war, not any plants already built
and ramped up and ready to go, nor a public looking for new cars, for
example, since it hadn't had any since 1942, no more need for victory
gardens, no rationing of nylons?

Cutting taxes on the
wealth to the ridiculously low rate it is now NEVER results in
stimulating the economy.

I am not one claiming that it has.

--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:35:29 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Deep Dudu wrote in :

On Sat, 28 May 2011 12:19:55 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Deep Dudu wrote in :

On Sat, 28 May 2011 08:31:16 -0700, Peter Franks
wrote:

Why should the wealthy pay more than their fair share?

They aren't. Notice what it was for years after WWII when our
economy
was booming.

Do you think that was all due to taxes on the wealthy?

Yes. Tax the hell out of the wealthy an invest directly in the
infrastructure then you stimulate the economy.


IOw, you feel that if the wealthy had not been taxed at such a high rate,
the post war boom would have never happened? It is all due to that high
tax rate and no euphoria from winning a war, not any plants already built
and ramped up and ready to go, nor a public looking for new cars, for
example, since it hadn't had any since 1942, no more need for victory
gardens, no rationing of nylons?

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ernment_d.html


Cutting taxes on the
wealth to the ridiculously low rate it is now NEVER results in
stimulating the economy.

I am not one claiming that it has.

Deep Dudu wrote in :

On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:35:29 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Deep Dudu wrote in :

On Sat, 28 May 2011 12:19:55 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote:

Deep Dudu wrote in :

On Sat, 28 May 2011 08:31:16 -0700, Peter Franks
wrote:

Why should the wealthy pay more than their fair share?

They aren't. Notice what it was for years after WWII when our
economy
was booming.

Do you think that was all due to taxes on the wealthy?

Yes. Tax the hell out of the wealthy an invest directly in the
infrastructure then you stimulate the economy.


IOw, you feel that if the wealthy had not been taxed at such a high
rate, the post war boom would have never happened? It is all due to
that high tax rate and no euphoria from winning a war, not any plants
already built and ramped up and ready to go, nor a public looking for
new cars, for example, since it hadn't had any since 1942, no more
need for victory gardens, no rationing of nylons?

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ernment_d.html

Which has little to do with what I asked you.


--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.