This has to be the biggest sham report on the subject of economics and taxation that I've ever seen. Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post, who apparently doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, is whining about the tax burden of the middle class. Weisman complains that "President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families". They even sport a fancy graphic that states: "Under President Bush's tax cuts, the share of federal taxes paid by the middle class rose." He does his best to make it sound like the evil, hated, rich are getting government handouts while the middle class is paying more taxes, which is a lie.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

Wow that seems like pretty damning evidence. That is, until you realize that it doesn't mean anything. The rich, the middle class, and the poor are all paying less taxes. The rich and middle class are both keeping more of the money they earn, and even the dirt poor who don't pay any taxes at all are getting larger refundable tax credits welfare handouts from the government. Given that, does anyone really care what their percentage of the whole really is?

They should ask Joe Taxpayer: "Even though the Bush tax cuts put $3000 more cash into your pockets, aren't you worried that your income bracket may be paying a slightly higher percentage of total taxes collected? Would you be interested in paying higher taxes again, if it meant you were paying a lower percentage of the total taxes collected?" If they guy is stupid enough to say yes hand him his Federal Voluntary Tax Refund Forfeiture form and tell him to write a check for $3000.

The reason for the shift has to do with the progressive nature of the tax code. Since the top brackets pay such a large portion of the total taxes collected, even a tiny cut in the top tax bracket is more money than a much larger cut in the lower bracket. Even though both brackets are cut and all taxpayers are playing less, the proportion of the total shifts slightly downward. But since we are all paying less, should we really care?

Well I guess that depends on how you view money. Is the money that you earn really yours, or does it belong to the government? This passage is perhaps best illustrates how the Democrats view it:

The tax cuts this year will boost the income of millionaires by 10.1 percent, while middle-income families see a boost of 2.3 percent, the Democrats said.

So tax cuts are boosting income now? As if letting you keep more of the money you earn is a gift from the government. Notice too how they mix the term millionaire (which refers to wealth) with income. John Kerry is a billionaire, but he doesn't earn a billion dollars a year. (And the Kerry's apparently pay less than 15% of their income in taxes.)

But even if that statement is true, isn't a boost still a boost? They even use raw dollar amounts to prey on people's envy.

But to Democrats, the conclusion was clear. For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent garnered $78,460, said Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee who analyzed the report.

What do they propose we do; give $78,460 tax cuts to people that only earn $14,900 a year?

UPDATE: Neal Boortz points out that the numbers were twisted by the media to include Social Security and Medicare taxes. If you take those out of the equation, the evil, hated, rich actually pay a larger portion than before.

The media wanted to take these CBO numbers and report them in a way that would make the Bush tax cuts look bad. It's all part of the template. If you can spin a story so that it looks favorable to Kerry, and bad for Bush ... do it. How do you monkey with the CBO figures to accomplish this? Simple ... you include Social Security and Medicare taxes in your equation. The Bush tax cuts cut income tax rates, not Social Security or Medicare rates. The only fair way to report on how these tax cuts affected the various income levels would be to cite income tax rates only. Guess what? If you only include numbers from who is paying what federal income taxes you will find that the rich are paying a higher percentage of income taxes collected by the federal government now than they were before the tax cuts!!!

What media bias?