[geeks] KVM for Sun Sparc Servers with USB keyboards

[Shannon Hendrix]

On May 6, 2009, at 12:41 , Sandwich Maker wrote:

> " From: Lionel Peterson <lionel4287 at gmail.com>
> "
> " []
> "
> " As you describe it, and in light of recent election, if you  
> promise to
> " raise taxes on 5% of the population to fund a tax cut for 95% of the
> " population - you're virtually guaranteed to win...
> "
> " I think we are there, or at least just about there...
>
> well, considering that 5% has managed to get massive tax -cuts- over
> the last 5 decades...
>
> the top rate is what, 37%?


Crap, I was trying to find a website with a tax history and hit send  
before I was done.

> it was 50% under reagan.

Anyway, my memory was that he dropped it to 30% after it being near  
78% under Carter.

Some tax lists don't show the "pure" values, but show what the  
statistician thinks is the effective average.

The tax brackets are not simple percentages, but are percentages over  
a certain income level.

You have to look at both the bracket percentage, and the cutoff.

For example, Reagan did lower taxes to 30% or less for most people,  
and 50% as the highest, but he also lowered the cutoff from around  
$200K to around $85K.

If you think about it, this did probably lower most people's taxes to  
under 30%, but that's misleading because people from $85K-200K saw  
their taxes go up because they were moved into the next bracket.  I  
guess you would call them upper middle class or something.

Anyway, as usual it's not just a simple percentage, and not only has  
the percentage varied a lot, but the cutoff has too.  In fact, it  
seems the cutoff has varied more than the percentage itself.

You can find one interpretation on www.truthandpolitics.org, and I'm  
sure there are others.

-- 
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."