in article calmvr$js6$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 11:30 AM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article calhbl$fhs$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 9:54 AM:
> 
>>>> 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".
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Which was rather the point; it flattened it, not simply reduced it down
> the line.
> 
> Mike

And why is flattening it not a good thing?