Since Tuesday was tax-filing deadline day, it seemed the one appropriate day of the year to find a reason why I'm glad I didn't make a million bucks last year.

Sure enough, the state Franchise Tax Board's most recent annual report on California income taxes revealed bad news for those with million-dollar-plus annual incomes: Although these 45,696 ultra-rich made up just 0.3 percent of California tax filers in 2005, they paid 36.5 percent of the income taxes.

They had an average state income tax liability of $344,527 each.

There it was: Proof that it's not a good thing to be rich.

Unfortunately, my eyes then drifted over to the next column: "taxable income."

It showed that these 45,696 tax filers combined to make $163.6 billion in 2005, or 21.3 percent of all the taxable income earned by California's 14 million tax filers.

That means if you were divvying up $1,000 among a representative sample of 1,000 California taxpayers, the richest three would get $71 apiece. After the next 32 wealthiest in the group took their proportional cut, only $604 would be left — with 965 people still in line.

That explained it: The reason those few people pay such a big chunk of taxes is because they have such a big chunk of the money.

Turns out we working stiffs don't get to gloat even on April 15.

It hardly seems newsworthy any more to point out the extent of income inequality in contemporary America, but the annual analyses of California tax returns still reveal mind-boggling details.

The wealthiest category detailed in the report — those with taxable incomes in excess of $5 million in 2005 — consisted of 5,895 tax filers, or 0.04 percent of taxpayers. They made 12 percent of all the taxable income in the state, or an average of $15.7 million each. They had an average state tax liability of $1.5 million and collectively paid 22 percent of California's personal income tax.

At first glance, it seems that California's progressive income tax structure does a pretty fair job of apportioning the tax burden. After all, if the top 0.04 percent of taxpayers pay 22 percent of the income tax, the rest of us get off pretty well, right?

Not so, according to the California Budget Project, which issued its own report on tax deadline day.

That report gives the state's progressive income tax structure its due. It notes that a single mother with one child in California last year did not pay any income taxes if she earned less than $39,283. A married couple with two children paid no taxes on its first $49,083 in income.

Most would agree it's a good thing that the people who struggle hardest to make ends meet get a pass on having to pay state income taxes.

The problem, says the Budget Project report, is that sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes and all the rest take a very big bite out of the incomes of poor and middle-income Californians. The bite is so big that it more than makes up for the break on income taxes.

"Measured as a share of family income, California's poorest families pay the most in taxes," the report says. "The poorest fifth of the state's households, with an average income of $11,100, spend 11.7 percent of their income on state taxes. In comparison, the wealthiest 1 percent, with an average income of $1.6 million, spend 7.1 percent of their income on state taxes."

These April 15 reflections should inform the discussions to come — in May, in June, and perhaps beyond — on how to close California state government's $8 billion-plus budget shortfall.

There is much talk in Sacramento of resorting to tax increases, or at least the elimination of some tax credits, as part of the budget-balancing equation.

Some suggest expanding the tax base by subjecting certain services to sales taxes.

The Budget Project report suggests that would not be the fairest approach

Some fiscal-policy wonks in Sacramento have suggested that the state budget would be a lot more stable if it wasn't so heavily reliant on the income taxes of the rich, whose incomes fluctuate dramatically in economic booms and busts. Income tax revenues account for more than half the state's general fund.

Indeed, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes, a policy that captured excess income-tax revenues in good years and set them aside in a rainy-day fund would have a long-term stabilizing effect.

But in the short term, if the state needs more money, there is only one practical place to look: to the few who have the most.

— Timm Herdt is chief of The Star state bureau. Read his political blog "95 percent accurate*" at http://www.TimmHerdt.com.