Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>> Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote:

>>>Because they were proportionate to the tax burden borne by the upper 
>>>brackets. 

>> Sorry, no they weren't. 

>> Trivially, in 1986, the upper 1% income bracket had a 25.75% overall
>> contribution to the federal tax collections. The upper 5% paid 42.57%.
>> 
>> In 1987, after the tax reform, the numbers were 24.81% for the upper 1%,
>> and 43.25% for the upper 5%. In other words, the burden simply shifted
>> downwards, NOT in proportion to what they had paid, but for the very
>> richest.
> So, let me see... you judge proportionality of taxes between the upper 
> and lower classes by a 1% shift in the upward tax burden in the top 5% 

And I note that the avg tax rate for the upper 1% went from 33.13% to 
26.41%, while the overall upper 5% went from 25.68% to 22.10%, the
overall upper 10% from 22.64% to 19.77%, etc.

Indeed, I believe I already posted this table in repsonse to Mssr
Gerry's rant.

Really, Mr Williams, I'm sorry that there are standard definitions
involved, but there you are.

Mike