Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Huh? If there are ten different ways to interpret "proportionally higher", I'm guessing you are interpreting it in the only way that supports your statement (assuming any way exists).
The chart shows effective taxes for the top 20% going down to 14.2 from 17.1. Thats a proportionate decrease of approximately 17% or so.
For the next 20%, to 6.6% from 8.5%. Thats a proporationate decrease of approximately 21 or 22%.
For the middle 20%, to 3.5 from 5.2. Thats a ballpark 33%.
The 20% after that receive welfare checks, whereas before they paid taxes.
The lower chart shows that the top 20% pay a higher proportion of taxes now; whereas every other group pays a lower proportion.
What proportion do you see in that chart that justifies your statement?
Hello
|
The top 20% got a reduction in their effective rate of 3%. The second and third 20% each got a cut in effective rates of less than 1%.
All this debate is proving the old Mark Twain adage: there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.
