But there is a question that shoud be asked about not what Kerry said, but what he meant. He said the tax burden increased on the Middle Class. He means that the percentage of total tax changed with the Middle Class' tax liability increasing ang the rich's falling. Technically this is true. But the BURDEN of taxpayers in the Middle Class did not change. No middle class taxpayer received a rate increase. They are paying the same or less than before the tax cuts.The rich may be paying less, or they could be paying more as the economy improves and profits increase( See JFK Tax Cuts 1962). I'm pretty sure the GOP has competent people who can intelligently point this out. Though based on the campaign so far I may be thinking wishfully.
But it's in the NY Slimes - it must be true!
Technically this is true."
Even technically what Kerry was saying is not true... the liberal Economists had to go through contortions of statistics to get the one number they liked.
1) Middle class got a larger percentage income tax cut than rich.
2) Percentage of income tax paid by rich increased. That percentage is quite high - something like top 20% pay 80% of taxes.
3) Middle class is getting most of the gains of after-tax income in the last 4 years, ie, they've had gains, while the 'rich' have not.
4) Tax burden on the middle class has gone down while their income has gone up.
(NB: The opposite of what kerry is implying).
the only way kerry can make the stats look bad is to lump in FICA and the income tax and note that a larger share of *that* is paid by middle class ...but if you abolished the income tax brackets below $100,000 entirely you could show the same thing, since FICA becomes a larger %age of that 'total taxes'.
GOP should refute this - FICA is regressive but the Bush tax cuts didnt change it at all. lumping it in to create this impression is in the lies,damned lies, and statistics dept.