Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>> Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote:

>>>>In 1987, after the tax reform, the numbers were 24.81% for the upper 1%,
>>>>and 43.25% for the upper 5%. In other words, the burden simply shifted
>>>>downwards, NOT in proportion to what they had paid, but for the very
>>>>richest.

>>>So, let me see... you judge proportionality of taxes between the upper 
>>>and lower classes by a 1% shift in the upward tax burden in the top 5% 

>> And I note that the avg tax rate for the upper 1% went from 33.13% to 
>> 26.41%, while the overall upper 5% went from 25.68% to 22.10%, the
>> overall upper 10% from 22.64% to 19.77%, etc.

>> Indeed, I believe I already posted this table in repsonse to Mssr
>> Gerry's rant.

> Yes. And by repeating it, you proved that you didn't comprehend my 
> earlier post. If you want to demonstrate your thesis, you would have to 

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.

Mike