Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Regardless, you still seem to be disputing whether the rich paid more, while providing no evidence of such.

I'm saying there isn't any real evidence that they paid a lot more. The tax rates and deductibles were different. Ignorant comparisons between the top marginal tax rates (while ignoring the tax rates of the rest of the tax brackets) are useless. That is all I'm saying.

Quote: (And, it might to note that the "poor" paid zero percent in income taxes a few decades ago, so the income tax code certainly wasn't "sticking it" to them.)

Nice catch on the Regan reference. I know you wouldn't want to have accidently highlighted how he allowed the poor (at least those making less then $3,400 per year) to pay no taxes. Regardless, those tax cuts were across the board, and I know that some liberals were whining about how they were simply tax cuts for the rich. Too bad he (like every other republican it seems) can only deliver on half their promise. Cut taxes. They all seem to go lose their way at cutting government spending. At least democrats are honest in this regard. They are going to tax you more, and increase government spending. [wink]

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Looks to me that they're too hard for you to find. Either that or you're just too rude to cite the specific source of the figures in your table. Just the same, thanks for making up the median income figures and for letting on that you're talking about 1960. Oh wait! You didn't make up any media income figure you just made the claim that it was taxed at 22%. How convenient for you! But I have to ask you, if differences in deductions make the comparison meaningless, why did you bother making up the figures in your table? That seems like a lot of work for nothing.

They aren't made up. Look at the first fucking link in the google search I showed you. Exactly the same situation with the median income for 1960. The first result for both searches yield the sources for the information I posted.

They might as well be made up. As far as I'm concerned you're asking me to do your research for you and frankly that's rude, so don't lose your cool when I ask you to cite your sources and, when you don't, accuse you of making them up. "Let me google that for you" is another way of saying "rtfm" but this isn't an "rtfm" situation, this is a calling you out for making shit up situation - and you still haven't come through with a source. The first link the returns? What kind of crap answer is that?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Nice catch on the Regan reference. I know you wouldn't want to have accidently highlighted how he allowed the poor (at least those making less then $3,400 per year) to pay no taxes.

If you're referring to my edit, I'm not sure what sort of "insightful" point you might be trying to imply. I said nothing about Reagan "allowing the poor" to pay no taxes. In fact, my post previously said "the 'poor' paid zero percent in income taxes before Reagan." Therefore, I didn't have to "catch" myself from 'accidentally' praising Reagan. I edited it for the simple reason that "before Reagan" was an extremely vague time period to cite.

So ... again, I find it difficult to discern the reason for the haughty tone and snarky implications in your post.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Regardless, you still seem to be disputing whether the rich paid more, while providing no evidence of such.

I'm saying there isn't any real evidence that they paid a lot more. The tax rates and deductibles were different. Ignorant comparisons between the top marginal tax rates (while ignoring the tax rates of the rest of the tax brackets) are useless. That is all I'm saying.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence to back whether or not the rich paid more in income taxes.



But anyways, if anyone had made the assertion that The Man was "sticking it" to the rich, then you would have a decent point that the top marginal tax rate alone doesn't prove that they were paying more; but no one actually stated such a thing in this thread. From what I can tell, there was merely a suggestion to raise the marginal rate. So, as it stands, you're arguing against a strawman, and further, you're making your argument by vaguely referring to "deductions" which is evidence that I find to be even less convincing than the claim you're arguing against.