Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

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.

The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Indeed, the study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress.

====================================================
ALSO @ :

REUTERS = CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JM1E0PE5SDZYECRBAEOCFEY?type=domesticNews&storyID=5973366
====================================================

-- Modified on 8/13/2004 2:13:53 PM

people in the middle class got a tax cut. That whopping 1% tax cut is nothing to go in a rage about.  That tax cut is what is driving this meager recovery.  We need a bigger tax cut to make the recovery go faster.  

If your man Kerry gets into office, you don't have worry about tax cuts. Your taxes will go up and we will go into a recession and after 2 years of Kerry's recession you will blame that on Bush too.

I'm George Dumbya Shrub; and I approved these lies the middle class and poor are seeing in their checkbooks.

-- Modified on 8/13/2004 6:53:56 PM

It says

20% of taxpayers pay 63% of total tax while the remaining 80% pay only 37% of the tax.

Last year 20% of taxpayers paid 64.4% while the remaining 890% pay only 35.6%

A change of 1.4% but "The Burden" is still borne by the wealthiest (of which I am not a part) by far.

Gotta watch out for sclickmeister headlining.....it engenders class envy.

BK

The facts are that the middle class is shouldering more of the tax burden as a consequence of recent tax policy.  The fact that high wage earners or the investing wealthy pay a large percentage of taxes is no surprise, that has happened under every single administration since tax collection from citizens was enacted.  I am sure that if one took the time to do research, it would be seen that the tax burden by the wealthy stays at roughly the same percentage from year to year, with adjustments in that percentage only when a tax package such as what President Bush II enacted happens.
    Although I do not consider myself wealthy, I am a high wage earner and fall into the tax group that pays the 64.4% of taxes that you mentioned.  As far as I am concerned, we should pay more because we have more to loose if society becomes unglued due the inability of government to finance key societal activities.  I would not be able to shield my assets if the world that I know fell apart around me, I would loose everthing, this is why I consider the taxes that I pay a good "investment".
    Before you attempt to charge that I am some leftwing shill, understand that 1) I am a political moderate that is fically moderate 2) I have done a lot of thinking about tax policy and how it impacts me, so my reactions are not knee jerk but well thought out.  That thinking involves extrapolating to the extreme social situation to which I alluded, because only at the extreme can the consequences of bad tax policy be seen.

The rationale for the tax cut was that it would stimulate employment.  Even as late as yesterday, Dubya was still trying to argue that the tax cuts create broader employment.

The statistics prove otherwise.  Instead of stimulating employment, there is a net loss of jobs.

Dumbya's message:  "Don't believe what you see with your own eyes!  Believe what I tell you to believe!!!"

Or, in Dick Cheney's mode of expression: "F'em if they can't take a joke."

I repeated the facts as presented. Why are you asking me to dispute them?

But thank you for making my point nonetheless. "The Burden" of paying for the majority of government activities is now and as you say, always has been "borne" by the wealthiest amongst us. (which includes you but excludes me).

This perhaps statistically insignificant change cited in no way changes that fact. Hence, despite the deceptive headline, "The Burden" has NOT shifted to the middle class.

BK

should review the headlines and the stats again.....

As is often the case, headlines and details are at odds with each other. It sells papers.......

THIS WAS/IS/HAS BEEN the point of the argument ! ! ! ! !

"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. {--- SEE IT ! ! ! !

THE MIDDLE CLASS tax burden went UP, not DOWN like everyone else’s, I don't see why you refuse to read it ?

From 18.7 % it went UP to 19.5 %, you may say small amount, but as incomes have not gone up, and in fact more people in this segment have lost jobs etc. it has become harder for US to get by. I think BOTH you and I fall in this income level.

Do you get it now ?

You can't give tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes!!( IE the guys at the bottom)The guys in the middle always pick up the check. I don't mind as long as I'm making more money than before.

the misunderstanding. i'M NOT QUIBBLING THE NUMBERS!

http://theeroticreview.com/MsgBoard/ViewMsgBody.asp?BoardID=39&Page=1&Messageid=8535

I'M QUIBBLING THE HEADLINE!!!!!!!

""""Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle"""""

I think that this is a misleading headline. The "Tax Burden" has not shifted to the middle class. 20% of the taxpayers pay 65% of all taxes. 80% pay only 35%. That means someone else is paying YOUR's and MY freight!!!!

WTF do people expect????? I guess I just don't get it. The number moves a statiscally insignificant amount and all the tax mongers go friggin nuts!!!!! Oh Jesus! We can't let them rich folks get away with that!!!

It's all about engendering envy dude. These Washington pols play this class against class bullshit for the sole purpose of sucking in more spending money and your sucked right into it.

Why don't we see headlines about the fact that government at all levels extracts 30% of all income??? It's friggin hideous as far as I'm concerned. Please, don't rob rich people on my behalf....I'll earn my own way, thank you.

BK



-- Modified on 8/15/2004 1:23:09 AM

Of the top 20 percent made a total of income higher than 63 percent of the total income pool, they are undertaxed.  Period.  There's no argument with that.

If the wealthiest 20 percent paid 20 percent of the tax burden, our tax system would be severely regressive, and you would have no doubt about it.

I've heard conservatives make this argument again and again, and they never supply the information that would make it mean anything.    

I presume it's probably because once they did, the argument would fall to the ground.

/Zin

-- Modified on 8/17/2004 10:51:45 AM

The tax cuts haven't stimulated jobs; they have only SIMULATED jobs!!!  When an accountant with nearly 12 years of experience such as myself can't even get a temporary employment staffing agency to call with a temporary job assignment, it's safe to say the economy SUCKS!!!