Kurt Ullman wrote:

Seems like we do this over and over again.

-snip-
Actually it wouldn't be. Taxing the rich like they used to be would
actually make it worse. According to IRS figures, 1980 the top 1% (and
you can't get any richer than that) paid 19.05% oF fed income taxes.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the whole enchilada is
$100.

That top 1% made 8 1/2% of the money in 1980. Their rate was 34%.
[data from http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html ]
The gov't collects $2.89 from those boys/girls.

By
1987 (I toss this in since the tax changes in '86 include some in the
definition of Adjusted Gross Income so prior to this is not exactly
comparable) it was 24.81% and by 2008 (the last I could find) it was
38.02%. So, in order to tax the rich like we did in the 80s, we would
have to cut their taxes in half.

In 2008 they were making 20% of the money. And their rate was 23%.
the gov't collects $4.46.

So the gov't would make out pretty well if they started paying what us
peons pay [if we include FICA]

Jim