No, but in my world facts are facts.
"These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period."
Graph mentioned:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...txct/fig-1.gif
Source: (entire article)
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm
"Tax receipts 1981: $517 billion
Tax receipts 1990: $1.032 trillion
The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency."
Source: (full article)
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Reaganomics/
So now you've learned that even though Reagan
cut tax rates, the total amount of
tax revenue increased. And you've also learned that although he cut the top wage earners rates the most, their percentage of the tax burden actually increased. So knowing this, why are you opposing a proven conservative answer to our problems?