mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote:
> 
>>mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>Actually, no, he didn't. What he did was cut taxes across-the-board, BUT
>>>>>gave a disproportionate cut to the upper income brackets.
> 
> 
>>>>Do we really need to go over this again?
> 
> 
>>>I suppose so.
> 
> 
>>>Is it your contention that Reagan did NOT cut taxes across the board?
> 
> 
>>>If so, please document this mysterious claim.
> 
> 
>>No.
> 
> 
> Ah, then your "Do we really need to go over this again?" was
> superfluous?
No. People frequently argue that tax cuts that benefit the wealthy are 
disproportionate. It was apparent that you were repeating this fallacy. 
Tax cuts benefit the wealthy because the wealthy pay taxes. You can't 
make a significant tax cut and benefit the poor, because the poor don't 
pay a significant percentage of the taxes.


> 
> 
>>My contention is that your statement that the cut was 
>>disproportionate was unwarranted. 
> 
> 
> It was 100% accurate.
> 
> Do you require references, Mr Williams?

Sure: show me a reference that indicates that the bulk of the tax cuts 
went to people that weren't paying taxes, or that it changed the 
relative positions of people in the taxing scheme. If A paid more taxes 
than B before the cuts, he paid more than B after the cuts. That holds 
whether you do it in absolute dollars (the only meaningful measure) or 
percentages (the more popular measure).

The tax cuts took people that were paying obscene tax loads and left 
them paying slightly less obscene tax loads. People in the bottom half 
of the income curve didn't pay much before the tax cuts, and didn't pay 
much after. The cuts were in proportion to the amount being paid. You 
may not think that is the correct thing to be proportionate to, but it 
doesn't make them disproportionate.

> 
> Is accuracy always unwarranted in your circles?
No. I just think your definition of "disproportionate" reflects your 
social policy more than it reflects the meaning of the word. They 
weren't proportionate to income, but they were proportionate to tax burden.

KWW