How does this work?

Ok, today's post comes from the Op-Ed page of the New York Times (a paragon of truth). In an editorial entitled, "Tax Cuts and Consequences", the author starts by saying,"The tax system in the United States is supposed to mitigate inequality." They then go on to do an analysis of the Bush-era tax cuts.

In a classic example of 'baffling them with bulls**t', the author states, "...the top 1 percent of households pocketed 14 percent of total after-tax income in the United States, up from 12.2 percent in 2003." Ok, we're on board with the fact that the top 1 percent now get to take home a little more of their paycheck in 2004 than they did in 2003. Keep in mind that we're operating under the supposition that the tax system is supposed to be fair according to the author. That means that the next statistic should show that the other 99 percent of us have taken home less than the 14 percent that the top 1 percent get right? That would be unequal, right?

Here it comes, "In contrast, the share of after-tax income going to households in the middle of the income distribution fell to 15 percent in 2004, down from 15.4 percent in 2003..." Wait a minute, am I reading this wrong? The rest of us went from taking home 1.4 percent more than the top 1 percent, to only 1 percent more. How does that fit with the initial premise that the tax system is supposed to reduce inequality? Doesn't that just prove that the system is skewed against the top wage-earners (a category I will NEVER fall into)?

The author (someone who probably makes way more than I do) cries about how the masses are suffering because of the tax cuts. They cry about the rich getting richer and make the equally stupid statement, "thanks to the tax cuts of 2003 — investments are now taxed at about the lowest rates in the code." like this is a bad thing. My wife and I have been investing $10 a week in the stock market (thank you Sharebuilder.com) and are, quite frankly, enjoying the fact that our tax on that retirement savings is lower. Stock ownership is no longer a thing only for the rich to enjoy. Why would not taxing that be a bad thing?

Quite frankly, I used to think the New York Times was the epitome of intellectual thought and a model of good journalism. This ridiculous editorial's writing just shows that the tone and character of their writing is used to skew your opinion. By using statistics that actually disprove their supposition, they are able to press their anti-Bush agenda. I will concede that this is an editorial and opinion is allowed, but come on guys, could we at least keep the facts and the tone consistent?