"Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote in message
news:pP6zc.18465$tA6.1848@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
> > Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote:
> >
> >>mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Ah, then your "Do we really need to go over this again?" was
> >>>superfluous?
> >>
> >>No.
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > It is a fact that Reagan's tax cuts were disproportionate in favor of
> > the upper income brackets.
> >
> > Why do you disagree?
> Because they were proportionate to the tax burden borne by the upper
> brackets. Its as simple as that, really. Look at Figure 1-9 in
> http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=2 , your own cite.
> There is no disproportionate shifting of the tax burden in that chart.
> If anything, it shows an increasing burden on the higher income groups.
> Note that in the Reagan years, the tax burden of every group except the
> lowest 40% of our population *increased* slightly, which would mean that
> the tax cuts were very slightly disproportionate in favor of the poor.
> Figure 1-11 supports it: the slopes of the cuts are pretty much in
> direct proportion to the percentages plotted.
>
> You want the word "disproportionate" to mean "not in proportion to gross
> income." Sure, it wasn't proportionate to gross income. Not arguing
> that, but that isn't a relevant measure of proportionality. Tax cuts
> need to be measured versus taxes paid, not rates or incomes. To argue
> that the cuts were disproportionate, you would have to demonstrate that
>   the effect on total dollars paid was imbalanced in favor of the
> wealthy. Your charts don't show that. They show a fairly proportionate
> decrease in tax burdens.
>
> > As for your pathetic attempts to take the discussion into the realm of
> > "the rich deserve breaks", take it up with someone you actually STATED
> > things you infer (hint: you're not smart enough to read plainly, much
> > less tell me what I believe.)
>
> Talk to me again when you can read the charts in your own cites,
> comprehend their meaning, and phrase it succinctly and accurately,
> without resorting to Humpty Dumpty definitions.
>
> BTW, I assume that you understand that if you cut something from 50 to
> 45, a "proportionate" cut from 10 gets you to 9, not 5.

Ha! You assume a lot...

Jeff