There are quite a few mistakes in what was said in the article. For one, the middle 20% of taxpayers are not the middle class - the "middle class" comprises as much as 2/3 of the population in countries like Australia. The Economist defines middle class "as having a reasonable amount of discretionary income, so that they do not live from hand to mouth as the poor do, and defined it as beginning at the point where people have roughly a third of their income left for discretionary spending after paying for basic food and shelter." This means you can have a country of the ultra rich 1% and 99% poor and no middle class, and the middle 20% of taxpayers are still all poor.

Two, you can cut taxes without cutting them for the rich - you lower the rate in the bottom brackets, benefiting the poor and middle class, and raise the bracket on the rich to compensate. Done.

I do think it's perverse that some people are getting paid by the IRS though, that's one step too far in my book.