Then why is it that if those tax cuts benefited the wealthy so much more than the middle class when they were enacted they will now HURT the middle class so much more than the wealthy if they expire? You can't have it both ways.
You've listed the top 1%, the top 20%(of which the top 1% is included), the "middle" 20% and the "lower" 20%. That's a total of 60%. You're analysis is missing 40% somewhere. Oversight, or are you cherry picking data?
The real comparison is pretty simple when talking about the middle class. Prior to the Bush tax cuts rates on people filing single were: 27K/yr to 65K/yr were taxed at 27.5%. 65K/yr to 135K/yr were taxed at 30.5% Today those making 35K/yr to 85K/yr are taxed at 25% and those making 85K/yr to 178K/yr are taxed at 28%. So basically, the "middle class" is looking at a 2.5% increase should the rates expire. Look, I'm not advocating letting the "rich" slide by here. All's I want is a fair discussion about this stuff without all of the spin.
The real motive behind this is how it effects the "effective rate" a person pays. Lets use someone who is classified as "rich" who makes 500K/yr. Under the current system, the top rate of 35% is applied to any amount of income over $388,350. In this case the person would have $111,650 exposed to the top rate. If the Democrats get what they want, the tax rates on all money earned above 250K/yr would be subject to rates of 35.5% from 250K to 388K(if the tables are left intact) and 39.1% for everything over 388K. Under the new scenario this same person would have $138,000 of his income exposed to a rate .5% higher than it is currently and $112,000 exposed to a rate 4.1% higher than it is currently. Fully one half, or $250,000 will now be exposed to a tax rate higher than it is currently whereas, today, only $112,000 has exposure to rates this high. So there is definitely a "slight of hand" going on here and I'm sick and tired of these very legitimate concerns being downed out by a bunch of rhetorical nonsense.(not directed at you personally
)