in article catgk7$r9h$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 10:30 AM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article catdie$o00$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 9:38 AM:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
>> Mike, I think you need to check what you read for accuracy. The fact that
> 
> Please point out any factual errors. Thanks.

I did before. Basically, you were (and apparently are) presupposing a
constant tax burden.

>> the tax rate was flattened does not mean that the tax burden shifted upward
>> for everyone else in the table.
> 
> Sorry, please explain how your income group suddenly carrying a greater
> %age of the burden does not mean it shifted more of the burden onto your
> group.

Apparently, you don't understand the common use of the term "tax burden." It
refers to the amount of taxes each person or group is responsible for. It is
directly dependent of the total amount of taxes required.

>> That would presuppose that the total tax
>> burden was a constant, which it was not.
> 
> Total tax burden is a constant -- by definition 100%

By what definition? Please define your terms. I am curious what distortions
you will make to achieve a definition that supports your premise.

Tax burden is usually expressed as a fraction or percentage of income.