Class warfare or tax warfare?

Rangel Offering Broad Tax Plan, And Big Target by Steven R. Weisman

Read Article at NYTimes.com

"When the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee proposed a sweeping overhaul of the tax code last week, aimed at shifting more of the burden of taxation to the wealthy, Democrats were lukewarm and Republicans loosed a fusillade of attacks."


I'm amused by Weisman's phrase, "shifting more of the burden of taxation to the wealthy". To shift something to a group, it can't be the group's originally. His phraseology connotes that the burden hasn't been on the shoulders of the wealthy, even though the top 5% of wage earners pay 54.36% of taxes (for stats, check out the IRS statistics ). The top 1% (those who earned $295,495 or more) pay 34.27% of all income taxes. Apparently, Weisman blatantly dismissed these facts, or he believes in ghosts since the group he refers to doesn't exist in reality. The only thing phantasmal according to statistics is this lower 50%'s tax contribution: they pay about 3% of all income taxes.




"But even as Democrats ran for cover and Republicans fired away, the proposal by the chaiman, Charles B. Rangel of New York, gave shape to the debate over one of the biggest issues factoring the next administration: whether to keep President Bush's tax cuts in place of roll them back."


Oh God, I can see it now, "Republican Psycho": senators turned syndicate. Guest starring the NRA. But seriously, the gun imagery really does portray Republicans as loose cannons who go ballistic on their innocent, unarmed opponents (sorry, I couldn't refrain from continuing the weaponry theme). His imagery perpetuates the idea of the impulsive, agressive Republican. My mom noticed, however, that it also perpetuates the stereotype of the cowardly Democrat.


"Democrats have distanced themselves from the Rangel bill even while expressing approval of its general objectives of making the tax system more progressive, with the burden rising on those with the highest incomes."


The usage of the adjective "progressive" in this sentence is quite ambiguous. Did he misuse this term to refer to a progressive tax, where higher incomes pay more taxes? Or is he implying the tax system is
"making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc" (http://www.dictionary.com)? I can't tell, but the latter option is full with biased connotations. I believe this sentence could have been phrased more clearly for readers, who might not be familiar with progressive/regressive/flat tax definitions, and would assume the journalist was merely referring to an innovative, beneficial tax plan.



“the goal of tax fairness,' “welcomes his leadership,” “His bill is both brave and well designed,” "a coherent plan,” “put money back in the pockets of working families,” "very courageous in moving forward,” "on the right track,"


VS.

“largest increase in the history of America,” “no, ” “the mother of all tax hikes, ” "Boy, does this bill give them more revenue,” “I’m not a big fan of this proposal,”

Not much needs to be said here. Supporters of Rangel's plan recieved more inches in the article, and the quotes are better explicated than the quotes chosen from its opponents. The words themselves evoke a positive response-- "fairness," "leadership", "brave," "well designed," "coherent," "courageous," "moving forward," "on the right track." The opponents, however, seem to be randomly fabricating ideas, using colloquial instead of polished language, and readers gain a sense that the Republicans don't really know what they're talking about.

What do you think?