From: randy (cryofan@mylinuxisp.com)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2003 - 12:43:34 MDT
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:27:49 -0700, you wrote:
>My chat system found a good url:
>http://www.rebeccablood.net/archive/2002/incometable.html
>and equally useful the link at the bottom:
>http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html
>
>Yes, the top 1% is paying 37.4% of the income tax, and they only get 20% of
>the total income. Of course, that is 20% of the total income. But there are
>also time tables back to 1980. In 1980 the top 1% received 8% of the total
>income (this is Adjusted Gross Income, to be precise) and the top 5% made 21%
>of total. So the top 1% in 2000 receives the same share of income as the top
>5% in 1980.
>
>The top half makes 87% of the income and pays 96% of the tax, vs. 82% and 92%
>in 1980. (From the table on top I think this all is just federal individual
>income tax, totalling 980 billion in 2000; I'm guessing payroll taxes aren't
>here, let alone corporate income tax.)
>
>Average tax rate has gone from 15% to 15%, but with a depression in between.
>Average tax rate on the top 1% has gone from 35% to 27%... not sure I get how
>that works out. But it would seem we're not that far from a semi-flat tax in
>practice.
>
>-xx- Damien X-)
Would there be any significant penalties for rich people to fund false
propaganda showing the results you quote? None. Would there be any
significant benefits for rich people to do so? Yes.
Then, because wealthy people have the resources to easily fund such
propaganda, I suggest there is a good chance that such propaganda is
out there, and you may have just posted such.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 12 2003 - 11:54:14 MDT