| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I was referring to the federal proceeds from income tax data from 2005:Using 2004 data, it appears that the bottom 99% tax payers shared 47% of gross domestic product; so I assume the top 1 % tax payers acquired 53% of the GDP.
top 1 % of wage earners paid 39.4 %
then 2-5 % paid 20.3 %
then 6 - 10% paid 10.6 %
then 11-25 % paid 15.7 %
then 26-50 % paid 10.9 %
and the bottom 50 % of wage earners paid the remaining 3.1 %
......
I do fail to see proof of your points #1 and #2 below. Perhaps, I missed
that in an earlier message.
On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:53 PM, marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
The progressive tax system has been in place from a long time, butI'd like to see your evidence for this (and, of course, it would
it's gotten to be where the bottom 50% of income earners pay little
or zero tax.
necessarily take into account the effects of payroll and sales
taxes.) But let's go ahead and suppose that it is so. There are
only two possible ways that this could have happened:
1. Taxes in general have become much more progressive.
2. Wealth has been massively "redistributed" (I'm warming to that
word) FROM low income people TO high income people.
It is a simple demonstrable fact that #1 is false and #2 is true.
Indeed, I provided the evidence just yesterday.
So what, precisely, was your point? Really.
John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona