in article catdie$o00$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 9:38 AM:

> necoandjeff <spam@schrepfer.com> wrote:
>> <mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:cas6dd$n4e$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> 
>>>>> My comments were clear; you are attempting to get a value judgement
>> from
>>>>> me. Failing that, you fabricate your own, in order to refute it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Granted, an argument with you is an easily winnable one, but not that
>>>>> interesting.
>>> 
>>>> I don't know why you insist on skirting what is a fairly straightforward
>>>> question from both KWW and Ernest. The vast majority of your posts in
>> this
>>> 
>>> It's fairly simple.
>>> 
>>> I made a simple statement in response to someone else's mistaken comment
> 
>> "Actually, no, he didn't. What he did was cut taxes across-the-board, BUT
>> gave a disproportionate cut to the upper income brackets."
> 
> Yep.
> 
>> "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."
> 
> Yep.
> 
>> Three statements made by you. People are asking for the definition of
>> "disproportionate" that stands behind each of these three statements. So it
> 
> And the "MUCH larger cuts were given the very richest than anyone else,
> who got a much flatter cut."
> 
> should make it clear, even to the simplest minds.
> 
> And if that's not clear enough, I also gave the following as web
> site;
> 
> http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html
> 
> Now if you, or they, are REALLY all that interested in examining this
> "disproportionate" (as opposed to playing deliberately dense, though they
> may in fact actually BE this dense), you can look at the table labelled
> 
> Average Tax Rate (percentage of AGI paid in income taxes)
> 
> Now, the issue was Reagan's lauded "tax reform", so the years 1986 and
> 1987 are relevant, yes?
> 
> If you were REALLY so inclined, you would find that the average tax paid
> for the upper 1% income bracket went from 33.13% to 26.41%, or roughly
> a 20% cut in their taxes. For the upper 5% (which INCLUDES the upper 1%)
> it went from 25.68% to 22.10%, or about a 14% cut. For the upper 10%, it
> went from 22.64 to 19.77, or about a 13% cut. For the 25, it went 18.72,
> 16.61, or 11%. For the overall upper 50%, 16.32, 14.60, ~11%.
> 
> Further, looking at
> 
> Total Income Tax Shares (percentage of federal income tax collections
> paid by each group)
> 
> We see that the tax burden shifted downwards for the upper 1%, upwards
> for everyone else in the table.
> 
> So, it was NOT in proportion to taxes paid, % tax rate, etc.
> 
> It was, indeed, DISproportionate in favor of the very richest.
> 
> Mike