in article cati7m$r9h$6@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 10:58 AM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article catdoj$o00$3@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 9:41 AM:
> 
>>> necoandjeff <spam@schrepfer.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I don't profess to know that much about the Reagan tax cuts (I was in
>>>> junior
>>>> high when Reagan was first elected to office) but I have heard the basic
>>>> claims time and time again (claims that are made without any hard data or
>>>> thoughtful analysis about 99.9% of the time.) I was hoping for a little
>>>> enlightenment, and when Mike continued his evasions of a fairly simple
>>>> question, I decided to hop in for one last attempt at getting an answer
>>>> from
>>>> him, apparently to no avail...
>>> 
>>> If you have been following along as you claim, how did you miss the
>>> 
>>> http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html
>>> 
>>> reference?
>>> 
>>> Odd that your search through my posts didn't catch that reference. Are
>>> you unable to read the data?
> 
>> I took the bother to check out the reference, but it didn't support your
>> argument. Instead, it proved the contrary.
> 
> Oh, so the tax cuts were actually proportional to income? To previous
> tax rate? 
> 
> So how did the tax burden magically slightly off the richest, onto the
> lower income brackets?
> 
> Mike

It disproved your assertion that the tax burden of the lower income brackets
increased.