Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.daionet.gr.jp!news.yamada.gr.jp!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!news-sv.sinet!ns04b.ous.ac.jp!nd-os001.ocn.ad.jp!dojima-n0.hi-ho.ne.jp!not-for-mail From: Ernest Schaal Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Reagan's funeral Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:51:16 +0900 Organization: hi-ho Internet. Lines: 76 Message-ID: References: <2innd8Foqns8U1@uni-berlin.de> <9ttzc.45130$TR1.35950@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> <%D6Ac.73075$m51.32157@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> <11iAc.951$_U7.580@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gif1-p58.flets.hi-ho.ne.jp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dojima-n0.hi-ho.ne.jp 1087519891 19064 219.126.224.59 (18 Jun 2004 00:51:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: dojima-n0.hi-ho.ne.jp NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:51:31 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.5.030814.0 Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:14640 in article catdie$o00$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 9:38 AM: > necoandjeff wrote: >> wrote in message >> news:cas6dd$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