General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Krugman: Obama and the One Percent [View all]hfojvt
(37,573 posts)First, limiting things to the top 1%.
As if the top 20% is NOT far richer than the bottom 20%. As if the top 10% and the top 5% have not also been taking a larger share of the pie http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023937994
But that's cool, let's give trillions in permanent tax cuts to the top 5% and pretend we are sticking it to the rich, eh Krugman?
And the top 1%? As he alludes to in the link, the top 1% was not nearly as well off in 1979 as they are in 2013. As a group they paid a lower average tax rate because they didn't have as much money in 1979. In 1980, as my link shows, they only had 10% of the national income. Unlike 2010 when they had almost 20%.
And, it handily includes the tax increases from Obamacare (passed in 2010) as a way to hide the permanent tax cuts from ATRA (passed in 2013). Yeah, Obama really stuck it to them with the permanent tax cuts on dividends, and the permanent cuts to the estate tax.
Krugman, you are just a liar.