Forget about the two-day reprieve Americans will get because April 15 falls on a Saturday this year – the deadline that really weighs on people comes April 26, according to a study to be released today by the Tax Foundation. It calculates how many days the average American must work to pay for the government and then celebrates the end of that annual servitude with Tax Freedom Day. This year the happy day will come on April 26, meaning that Americans have had to work for the first 116 days of 2006 just to earn enough to pay their bill to the Internal Revenue Service. It’s bad enough that the day comes three days later than in 2005 and 10 days later than 2004, but there’s a particular punch for New Yorkers in these numbers.

That punch is related to a phenomenon known as “real bracket creep.” In our progressive income tax system, the brackets are indexed for inflation. But in times of rising prosperity, incomes can go up, and thus push earners into higher brackets, for reasons other than inflation. For example, as the economy expands, opportunities open up for talented workers to move into more productive, better paying jobs. That’s not inflation – it’s success. But the tax code punishes people for it. Real bracket creep is a particular problem for places like New York City. Generally high costs of living, such as astronomical rents, lead employers to offer more generous salaries, but these localized costs aren’t fully reflected in the inflation index used to set the brackets.

New Yorkers, thanks to this phenomenon, will actually be working until May 9 to pay their taxes. The Empire State has a greater proportion of residents in higher federal brackets, which increases tax bills even before factoring in some of the highest state and local taxes in the nation. Inflicting higher marginal rates on higher earners is enough of a problem on principle, but in New York it’s especially egregious. A married couple filing jointly needs to earn only $185,000 to fall into the second-highest, 33% federal bracket. The more a filer earns, the more likely he or she is to get hit with the alternative minimum tax, an automatic tax increase on certain users of legal deductions in the regular tax code or those unfortunate enough to live in a state with high state and local taxes that add to the deductions on the federal return.

Americans understand the problems with such a system, even if politicians don’t. That’s the conclusion to draw from another Tax Foundation report, this one of a poll conducted by Harris Interactive. The survey found that 40% of Americans said the federal tax system “needs major changes,” while another 40% said it “should be completely overhauled.” Just 2% described the federal tax system as “fine the way it is.” Only 1% of those polled said the current federal income tax is “not complex at all,” while 48% described it as “very complex.” Of those polled, 59% said they thought the amount of federal income taxes they personally pay was too high. When asked to choose between a flat-rate income tax with no deductions, a national sales tax, or the current graduated income tax with deductions, 33% chose a flat tax, 20% favored a national sales tax, and 21% preferred the status quo. The discontent is especially striking considering that, according to the Tax Foundation, 41% of Americans pay no net income tax, although the disgruntlement could stem from payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

The way this translates into politics is that those trying to shift more of the federal income tax burden onto “the rich” are going to have a tough time of it, particularly because the politicians most likely to try come from Democratic-leaning blue states like New York, Massachusetts, and California. These are states that also happen to have higher costs of living and higher salaries, so that their voters are feeling the resulting real bracket creep. No wonder such top Democrats as New York’s own Senator Clinton are evasive when confronted by journalists such as Bloomberg’s indomitable Albert Hunt.

In a Bloomberg television interview Monday, Mr. Hunt said, “You cited fiscal discipline earlier. And I know that you and most Democrats advocate rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy. Do you think a 15% capital gains tax rate, then, is too low?”

Senator Clinton hemmed and hawed: “You know, Al, I think we have to look at the whole package. You know, I obviously am an adherent to the Clinton economic policies. I believe in fiscal responsibility, and I know there are some who come on your shows and say, that’s outdated. We don’t need it. I think that’s a very dangerous position to take. We need to figure out what is it we’re trying to achieve and then we have to look to see on both the spending side and the taxing side how we get there.”

Mr. Hunt pressed, “But that would involve a higher capital gains tax.”

Senator Clinton hemmed, “I don’t know. I mean, I’m not going to …”

Mr. Hunt interjected, “If you roll back the Clinton – excuse me, the Bush …”

Mrs. Clinton hawed, “Well, if we went back to the Clinton policies it would. I’m not sure that that’s exactly what we should do, but I think the combination of fiscal responsibility and economic growth proves to be very positive for our country.”

In other words, the Democrats are in an unenviable position as Tax Day looms and Tax Freedom Day nears. The Democrats want to raise taxes, but the majority of taxpayers want lower taxes. Mrs. Clinton can talk all she wants about fiscal responsibility, but an honest liberal like Al Hunt can figure out that at the end of the day what that means is she wants to increase taxes. A thought to remember as April 15 approaches for those in the income-tax-paying 59% of the population.