McCain/Obama Tax Plans Examined

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
McCain's plan: cut taxes for everyone by funding it entirely from deficits. Cut taxes the most for the wealthy, so they can build their wealth and increase the income gap. Cut taxes the least for the lower income groups ($112k and under).

Obama's plan: cut taxes for everyone except the wealthy; fund it partially from deficits, but also from repealing tax cuts for higher income groups ($603k and up). Lower income groups ($112k and under) would see the highest percentage reduction in taxes paid.

Text

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

According to the Tax Policy Center's findings, the common assumptions most people make about the plans of McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democrats' pick, are not wildly off-base.

McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.


Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

"Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office.

The campaigns haven't had a lot of time to digest the Tax Policy Center's findings.

Jason Furman, a newly appointed senior economic adviser to Obama, said his preliminary response is that the report's findings bear out what Obama's campaign has been saying: that he's for the middle class.

"Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain," Furman said. "And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%."

The McCain campaign told CNNMoney.com in an e-mail that they would comment on the center's findings, but they had not done so as of early Wednesday afternoon.
A closer look

In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%.

But those in the lowest income groups would only see their after-tax income rise by less than 1% (or between $19 and $319). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000.

Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax.

Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.

Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree.

The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%.

But those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5% (worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000.
Not the final word

Williams said the Tax Policy Center analysis should be viewed as a work in progress. Researchers plan to update it as they get more information about the plans from the campaigns and if the candidates introduce new tax policies between now and Election Day.

The center will also incorporate the tax elements of McCain's and Obama's healthcare proposals when they update their findings.

How the candidates' tax plans would affect economic growth is an open question. "It depends on how the deficits are closed," said Tax Policy Center director Len Burman in a call with reporters.

Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they're paid for by raising taxes in the future, "the economy is worse off than if you didn't cut at all," Burman said.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Today.

Tomorrow Obummer will raise taxes for everyone making over the national average, because its not fair to make more money then the average.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
If this is to be believed.

McCain: 4.5 Trillion
Obama: 3.3 Trillion

Gee I can hardly wait.

With these tax breaks they are trying to squeeze blood from a beat. Lower income people pay very little of the federal income burden. Thus when tax cuts are passed they see very little in money.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Any household that makes 600k or more is not going to get a shred of sympathy from me if their taxes are increased considering the current state of the average citizen in this country. I don't care how much people flame on me for feeling that way or how much they try to argue that their freedoms are at stake. Their lives are perfectly fine and odds are they are much better off than those who make a combined total of 100k or less. If they are not better then they certainly have a lot more opportunity to make it better.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Today.

Tomorrow Obummer will raise taxes for everyone making over the national average, because its not fair to make more money then the average.
You're right, we should keep the McCain/Bush plan of extravagant tax cuts for the wealthy, because that's worked so well for the last 8 years.

It's not like Bush's plan increased the national debt almost by over $3 trillion in 7 years. Oh wait, it did.

EDIT: I was wrong.

January 2001: $5.7 Trillion
June 2008: $9.4 Trillion

So we've actually seen a $3.7 trillion increase since Bush took office.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Today.

Tomorrow Obummer will raise taxes for everyone making over the national average, because its not fair to make more money then the average.
You're right, we should keep the McCain/Bush plan of extravagant tax cuts for the wealthy, because that's worked so well for the last 8 years.

It's not like Bush's plan increased the national debt almost by over $3 trillion in 7 years. Oh wait, it did.

The wealthy in your world appears to be anybody who can afford to pay federal income taxes. >50% wage earners.

I dont think Obama's plan is bad. But lets be realistic in what to expect for the poor. They dont pay fed income tax to begin with. Why do people expect them to benefit from a tax cut?
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,161
12,338
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Today.

Tomorrow Obummer will raise taxes for everyone making over the national average, because its not fair to make more money then the average.

That doesn't even make any sense.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Genx87
The wealthy in your world appears to be anybody who can afford to pay federal income taxes. >50% wage earners.
The wealthy in Obama's tax plan are anyone making over $603k per year.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Today.

Tomorrow Obummer will raise taxes for everyone making over the national average, because its not fair to make more money then the average.
You're right, we should keep the McCain/Bush plan of extravagant tax cuts for the wealthy, because that's worked so well for the last 8 years.

It's not like Bush's plan increased the national debt almost by over $3 trillion in 7 years. Oh wait, it did.

EDIT: I was wrong.

January 2001: $5.7 Trillion
June 2008: $9.4 Trillion

So we've actually seen a $3.7 trillion increase since Bush took office.
And I'm still waiting for Congress to repeal the Bush tax break for the Top 1%...what the hell are they waiting for?

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Genx87
I said your world, not Obama's world.
Anyway, his plan is more about middle-lower-class tax cuts and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich from 2001/2003.

We'll be back where we started, in 2000, when our economy wasn't in the shitter.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Today.

Tomorrow Obummer will raise taxes for everyone making over the national average, because its not fair to make more money then the average.
You're right, we should keep the McCain/Bush plan of extravagant tax cuts for the wealthy, because that's worked so well for the last 8 years.

It's not like Bush's plan increased the national debt almost by over $3 trillion in 7 years. Oh wait, it did.

EDIT: I was wrong.

January 2001: $5.7 Trillion
June 2008: $9.4 Trillion

So we've actually seen a $3.7 trillion increase since Bush took office.

And it's not like Bush will be leaving our country in a better position than it was before he took office despite that increase. So much money has been wasted.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Now let's take these numbers and add their spending proposals. Wonder what the totals are then.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
The economy was in the shitter in 2000, we just didnt know it or wanted to believe it.

Anybody in the top 50% of wage earners saw benefits from the tax cuts. Not just the wealthy. That is my problem with the arguments like you post. The only people who see benefits from tax cuts are people who pay the taxes. In this case the top 50% of income earners in this country saw the benefits. Why people would think somebody in the bottom 30% would see a huge increase in disposable income from those tax cuts surprises me.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106

"Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain," Furman said. "And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%."

"Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they're paid for by raising taxes in the future, "the economy is worse off than if you didn't cut at all," Burman said."

what else is there to hide behind? This is fairly straight forward.

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Now let's take these numbers and add their spending proposals. Wonder what the totals are then.
Have you finished calculating what a 100-year occupation of Iraq will cost us?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: OrByte

"Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain," Furman said. "And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%."

"Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they're paid for by raising taxes in the future, "the economy is worse off than if you didn't cut at all," Burman said."

what else is there to hide behind? This is fairly straight forward.
Exactly. A factory worker in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Ohio would be hard-pressed at finding a reason to prefer McCain's plan over Obama's.

Paying off the national debt, even under Bill Clinton, didn't begin in earnest until he had a few years to get the economy back on track.

And given that anyone elected in 2008 will inherit a colossal mess from GWB, it might even take a little longer.

At least with Obama, his spending measures are going right back into our country, and not into national building escapades.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Really, we get it. You like Obama and can't stand McCain. Great. When will you partisan hacks (on the left or the right) get the idea that you're not going to convince anyone?

When I read an article that talks about "reducing taxes on the rich" etc, I immediately know it's a hack attempt at discrediting the Bush tax cuts. Those have been debated ad nauseum.

Then they try to compare the effect on deficits for each approach -- knowing perfectly well that there's no real way to measure the impact because reducing taxes may or may not increase deficits. If they increase total income by spurring economic activity, they may reduce the deficit. If they don't, the deficit increases. Only someone with a partisan agenda (left or right) would make such an assumption as part of an "analysis".
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Interesting to note that Obama's tax plan is more fiscally conservative than McCain's plan. That's a surprise.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Really, we get it. You like Obama and can't stand McCain. Great. When will you partisan hacks (on the left or the right) get the idea that you're not going to convince anyone?

When I read an article that talks about "reducing taxes on the rich" etc, I immediately know it's a hack attempt at discrediting the Bush tax cuts. Those have been debated ad nauseum.

Then they try to compare the effect on deficits for each approach -- knowing perfectly well that there's no real way to measure the impact because reducing taxes may or may not increase deficits. If they increase total income by spurring economic activity, they may reduce the deficit. If they don't, the deficit increases. Only someone with a partisan agenda (left or right) would make such an assumption as part of an "analysis".

Only a right-wing hack would equate all attacks on the Bush tax handouts to the richas 'hackery' by definition.

And we do know the effects of any tax reductions on the table now - they'll increase the deficit. You clearly have not read the economic studies of the effect of those cuts.

It's *marketing* to claim that they increase revenue through spurring the economy, and you merely show responsible caution by adding 'maybe' instead of just claiming it.

My comments are regarding the current situation, not when cuts actually could have that positive effect, as when JFK lowered the top rate from 90% to 75%.

You say the Bush tax cut effects have been 'debated ad nauseum', but clearly more is needed as you are not yet informed of the facts.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: Craig234
Only a right-wing hack would equate all attacks on the Bush tax handouts to the richas 'hackery' by definition.
Buzzzzzzzz... Sorry, that's incorrect, thank you for playing, I'm anything but a right-wing hack, in fact I'm not an anything-wing hack, I think the zealotry on both sides of the isle is rediculous. Using the terms "reducing taxes for the rich" is pretty much a red light indicator that what follows is a partisan attack, not an objective analysis.

And we do know the effects of any tax reductions on the table now - they'll increase the deficit. You clearly have not read the economic studies of the effect of those cuts.
No, we do not. Tax cuts do not happen in a vaccuum, they are but one factor of millions. As such, the most you can do is figure out correlation, not causation, because you can't isolate the factors. Would the deficits have been more or less had there not been tax cuts? Nobody can answer that question. Anyone who says they can do so without a doubt is just spouting ideology, not economics.

You say the Bush tax cut effects have been 'debated ad nauseum', but clearly more is needed as you are not yet informed of the facts.
Wrong. I'm plenty informed of the facts. Just because I don't adhere to your interpretation of them does not make me uninformed.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting to note that Obama's tax plan is more fiscally conservative than McCain's plan. That's a surprise.
Maybe that's why McCain's having a hard time shoring up his own conservative base.

But I applaud him for staying loyal to his master. More war, more debt. Bush/McCain 2008.