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