in article calhbl$fhs$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 9:54 AM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article cald2g$a46$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 8:41 AM:
> 
>>> Right. I don't speak Gibberese.
>>> 
>>> However, it is a fact that the tax cuts were disproportionately in favor
>>> of the rich. MUCH larger cuts were given the very richest than anyone
>>> else, who got a much flatter cut.
>>> 
>>> If you wish to refute this, simply post the data in the first part of
>>> your reply; you do not get smarter the longer you type.
> 
>> Actually the tax cuts simply reduced the extreme disproportional nature of
>> the previous system. The US system still taxes the rich at a higher
>> proportion than the poor, but not at such a disproportional amount.
> 
>> Bottom line: Even under the reduced tax rates, the rich still not only pay
>> more taxes than the poor, they also pay at a higher rate than the poor.
> 
> Which everyone knows, which is why it's called a "graduated tax".
> 
> Mike

But it was a "graduated tax" before and is still a "graduated tax." The only
thing that has changed is how flat that graduated tax is.