So where did I post any false information? In fact, many of you numbers are the
same as what I posted. I agree whole heartedly, that the lowest half pay very
little. BTW, this group includes retirees and, I believe, children, as well as
lots of poor folk. It probably also includes Neal.

I also agree that the very wealthy contribute a lot, though not the 90% that
Horvath claimed.

However, you can also find on the IRS site, proof that after the most recent tax
cut, the very wealthy, (the top 1%) will pay only slightly more than the upper
middle class, as a percentage of income. The effective tax rate for the top 50%
is rather flat, with a peak at the 95% point.


BTW, you could have posted a link to you source. Here's one that I've used:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03strudl.pdf



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Dear Group,

Jeff Morris is guilty of posting false information in
order to bolster his liberal ideas about taxation in this
country. I am getting sick and tired of his spreading
his lies around without anyone having the brains or
good sense to put him in his place among the other
liberals on the dung heap of failed politics. Therefore,
I shall do so. . . Into the dung heap with you, Jeff!

In the interest of providing the truth I did a wee bit
of research and came up with the truth in the way of
updated statistics for 2001 from the IRS.

This is the new data for 2001. The share of total income
taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in
2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just
wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average
tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

The top 5% of wage earners paid 53.25% of all Federal
Income taxes. The top 10% paid 64.89% and the top
50% paid 96.03 percent of Federal Income taxes. It
follows that the bottom 50% paid only 3.97% of the
Federal Income taxes. In other words if there is to
be any tax cuts at all they must by the nature of the
tax code go primarily to those who pay taxes and
this is primarily those in the upper brackets as proven
by the statistics above.

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues
from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market
crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the
sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more
taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to
lose more revenue from these people on the downside.
This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every
$100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid
by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are
the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like
"thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals
or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in
1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans
who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and
those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage
earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from
2000 figu 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down
from 2000 figu 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9%
(Down from 2000 figu 84.01%). The top 50% pay
96.03% (Down from 2000 figu 96.09%). The bottom
50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes.
The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal
income taxes than the bottom 50%.

And who earns what?
The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income.
The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10%
earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23%
(2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19%
(2000: 87.01%) of all the income.



I hope this helps!

S.Simon