> as your article says, the 50s tax rates barely actually had any impact on the wealthy.
The article says nothing of the sort
> except you're wrong about it being a self-destructive thing.
I have presented actual evidence, namely the fact that as wealth disparity increased (more billionaires) the number below the poverty line plummited (from 70% world wide to ~10%)... So the actual numbers are against your assertions and you've done nothing to demonstrate your own stance with facts, just unsubstantiated claims about it being bad.