For instance, now you say:
"I've agreed that the strong economy has made a big difference, but only held out for the point that the 1993 tax bill made sure that more of the growth going to the wealthy was taxed and contributed to the surplus."
But this is what you said in the previous post:
"If the top rate had not been raised from 31% to 41% in 1993, the surplus would be much smaller or nonexistent."
CTJ can't help you either. You quoted this:
CTJ: "The surge in tax revenues that began in 1993 has been driven both by the strong economy and by the upper-income tax increases that were enacted and took effect in 1993...The 1993 tax legislation has raised more revenue than anticipated because of growth in the number and income of the affluent (and notwithstanding the significant tax cuts enacted in 1993 for low- and moderate-income working families)."
But the assertion that the '93 legislation raised "more revenue than antiticipated" is not the same thing as saying it was chiefly responsible for the revenue surge, much less the change in the deficit projections.
Then you reiterate:
" . . . The richest 1% pay roughly $300 billion per year in federal income taxes. Without the 1993 tax bill, their rate would be 31% rather than 41%, or 25% less. Of course, translating top rates into effective rates is not exact, but any reasonable percentage of $300 billion is a "large" amount of money per year in my view. . . . "
If the $300b is a current figure, then it includes the effects of growth, distribution, etc., as well as rate increases. So it is fallacious to attribute some share of the total to a rate change. But I repeat myself.
mbs