Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
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.
|
So you are talking about only the percent they pay/paid relative to the percent they previously paid. Its cute how you leave the fourth 20% out entirely. They had their entire tax burden wiped out and receive welfare payments now. There was no possible way to even cut their effective rates by 3%.
Instead of changing their income by 3% via tax cuts and welfare payments, why not just get Governor Blagoyevich to buy them their crack in bulk?
That said, if you wish to maintain your characterization of it in the terms you show above (the rich got 3% of their money back, but you only got 2% back -- did you know John Kerry is a Vietnam war Hero?), I'll agree to disagree. The characterization that the wealthy are paying a higher portion of the tax base now seems like something I'd throw in a Democrats face anytime this came up, and the comparative strength of the statements makes the left look silly.
Say, soapboxes on opposite corners of Michigan and Wacker on Saturday?
Hello
Threaded Mode