Well, the Internal Revenue Service and the Congressional Budget Office have published tax and income numbers for 2005, and the press couldn't be any more wrong.
In fact, it's almost as if the media get their data from Democrat presidential candidates, and disseminate it without the slightest effort whatsover to vet or verify its veracity.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday (emphasis added throughout):
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.
Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005.
Wait a minute. Didn't Bush's tax cuts only favor the wealthy? Isn't that what virtually every Democrat media minion - who, of course, can't add one plus one and come up with the correct answer, mind you! - has been claiming for years?
Yet, that's not the truth, is it:
[T]he share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.
Not what Brian, Katie, and Charlie have been reporting, is it? Once again, it's almost like they're getting DNC talking points rather than actually looking at the data.
Color me unsurprised.
