CNN Money has a story comparing McCain's tax plan to Obama's.
One thing that interests me is this quote:
"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.
Essentially, the country will be taking in the same money from either plan. So the differences in the plans show where the candidate's priorities are.
Here's where it get's interesting: a chart of how takes would change for people in various income brackets:
| BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So naturally, being the self-interested guy I am, I looked at my net change in taxes first. I'd pay a little less under Obama's plan than I would McCain's. So it's a win for self-interest, which is great. But it's important to note that everyone who makes less than $227,000 a year will pay less under Obama's plan than they're paying now, and from $227K to $600K, it's pretty much a wash. (If I made $600,000 a year, I wouldn't quibble over the price of a movie ticket.)
For me, and for most people I know, the difference between McCain and Obama's plans amount to a couple hundred bucks. But the really important differences are above or below me. How much is the guy who bags my groceries saving in taxes? How much is the person working in the mailroom at Netflix saving? I don't know what they make, but I imagine it's less than an editor's salary. And I want these people to be happy, because I want nicely bagged groceries and timely DVDs, and because they're my fellow human beings who aren't necessarily as fortunate as I am.
Under McCain's plan, someone making $19,000 to $38,000 a year will save $113 in taxes. Obama's plan saves them eight times as much: $892. I've worked at a job--an editing job--where I had a salary of around $20,000. That was my newspaper salary. You know what an extra $770 a year will do for a reporter? It'll put gas in his car, so he can go out and report on the stories that matter to you. That money means a lot to him. It would have meant a lot to me, I can tell you.
People making less than $19,000 a year will be saving approximately $19 under McCain. Obama's plan saves them $567-- nearly thirty times what McCain's plan saves them. If you don't think that money, that $550, will mean a lot to the people that get it, then you've never worked a minimum wage job, or have forgotten what it's like. That money pays the rent. It buys food. It buys SEPTA passes, or maybe car insurance. It will not be wasted.
Then you can look up at the top of the chart, to see where John McCain's priorities are. I think they speak for themselves.
Rob
17 comments:
Well said.
Excellent! I agree that this really shows where the priorities lie.
Rob I understand you think you know were McCains priorities lie, but you are looking at ONE aspect of McCains Tax Plan. The Tax Policy Center, which analyzed the tax plans of Sens. Obama and John McCain after interviews with their top economic advisers a couple qualifiers are in order. Obama has claim "My plan offers three times as much tax relief to the middle class as Senator McCain's." First, those figures are for just one year of Obama's tax plan, 2009. As you can see that is ONLY true for ONE tax group. This is the group Obama calls the middle class. The tax payers in the lower two barckets pay LITTLE TO NO TAXES, so his claim is totally misleading because he does not qualify his statement. In no other tax group over the 20% (38K-66K) is his statement true.
Suppose you consider yourself middle class, but you make between $66,354 and $111,645 (in the 60 to 80 percent quintile). Then Obama's plan would translate to a tax cut of $1,264 in 2007, as opposed to a cut of $994 under McCain's plan. Not "three times as much." The nonpartisan, business-backed Tax Foundation points out another caveat. The tables cited by the Obama campaign in the Tax Policy Center analysis don't include the candidates' health care plans.
The Tax Policy Center did provide a preliminary report that concluded that under McCain's health care plan, people with incomes in the middle 20 percent would see after-tax income increase by $1,559 in 2009. Under Obama's health plan, those folks would see their income rise $269. Obama Tax Plan = $1,533; McCain Tax Plan = $2,553. The bottom line is that under McCain's Plan the MIDDLE CLASS would get a tax cut and MORE money in their paychecks then in Obama's Plan.
The McCain camp has argued that some of his biggest proposed tax cuts for the middle class come through his idea to replace the income tax exclusion of employer-paid health insurance with a refundable income tax credit of $2,500 for individual coverage or $5,000 for family coverage. "it's probably safe to say that if you include McCain's health care tax cuts, you do not get this three times greater figure" that Obama cited, said Gerald Prante, a senior economist with the Tax Foundation.
But throwing McCain's health plan in just makes his position worse. He wants to deregulate the healthcare system like he helped deregulate the financial system. His article in Contingencies states:
"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
That seems completely wrongheaded, especially in light of the current financial meltdown, which his chief economic advisor (Phil Gramm) shares much of the responsibility for.
Rob S. I will address your two references on deregulation of Social Security and The Financial Institutions.
First, according to FAckCheck.com (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html) I assume you get your opinion from Obama’s ad circulating in the media which claims that McCain will open Social Security to and I quote from your quote “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition..” is totally false.
All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005. That is not deregulation, but regulating Social Security to help retirees.
As the White House spelled out at the time, on page 5 of the document titled "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," released in February 2005
Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so.
Nobody born before Jan. 1, 1950 could have participated, and anyone born on that date would be 58 years old now. The earliest possible age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits is 62, for early retirement at reduced benefits. Full retirement age is currently 66, and scheduled to go up to age 67 in coming years.
It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990'
So your implication that some how Seniors would be losing there “nest egg” in the market is not true. Some qualifiers ACCORDING TO THE BUSH PROPOSAL: One, The private accounts would have been VOLUNTARY. Anybody fearful of the stock market's risk could simply stay in the current system. Two, Obama's reference to "casino culture," disappearing "nest eggs" and gambling with "your life savings" are also misleading exaggerations. Only a little under one-fourth of any workers' total Social Security taxes could have been invested (a maximum of 4 percent of taxable wages, out of the total 12.4 percent now paid, split equally between worker and employer.) Three, Speculation in individual stocks would not have been permitted. Workers would have had a choice of a few, broadly diversified stock or bond funds. So if you meant that McCain wanted to invest one-forth of 12.4% (3.1%) in broadly diversified stocks and bonds for those who VOLUNTARY wanted to do so starting in 2016 (1950 +66) in the Marker, then you are correct.
Rob here is my take on jut ONE aspect of Obama's Plan for what he would do with Social Security:
Obama wants to remove the Cap on Social Security – During the Primaries Obama proposed those making up to $102,000 for social security will pay 7.5%. Obama proposed removing that cap completely, effectively raising taxes on everyone making over $102,000 by 7.5%. Think about that, if you are making over $102,000 a year, your marginal tax rate is 28%, if you make over $170,000 it is 33%. If Obama has his way, the marginal tax rate for the guy who makes $150,000 a year will be 35%. Obama has changed his position a bit.
Now most resently he is proposing to keep the cap from $102,000 to $250,000, so that only those who earn over $250,000 will have this increase. So, the top wage earners will now have a tax rate of 42%, and for those who are self employed, and making over $350,000, their tax rate will now be a whopping 50%! So, if you work hard, become successful, and do well, Obama wants to take 50% of your earnings for taxes, and he is doing that to the individuals who already pay over 90% of the taxes in this country. Then of course, add in state and local taxes, and that high income tax payer is going to be paying close to 60% of his adjusted gross income in taxes. SIXTY PERCENT IN TAXES! Of course, all of these income figures are adjusted gross income, so the proposal affects a few less people than presented, but that is not the point. First, as pointed out by the Wall Street Journal, Social Security is not a welfare program. The reason there is a cap on the tax at $102,000, is that the maximum benefit that one can receive is based on a maximum salary of $102,000. I won't repeat the discussion here, but read the WSJ article - Obama is going to increase the social security tax on those making over $102,000, with no benefit to those people, something he said he WOULD NOT do.
Rob I don't know were to begin in addressing the implication that McCain and Senator Phil Gramm is some how responsible for this current economic crisis due to their lack of deregulation.
First, I don’t want to insult your intelligence in explaining the difference between a Republican’s Political View for small Government and Deregulation and a Senator’s responsibility to make sure that the government passes laws to Reform Government, ensure the Prosperity of the American People, and to ensure Peace and Security of our people and national interest. These two principles are not an oxymoron. Being a deregulator by belief is not some how a Flip Flop to want to regulate the Government to ensure the Security and Prosperity of the American People. IMHO anyone who claims that is just misrepresenting the issues and engaging in circular arguments.
I have conduct research in the widely asked question, who is responsible for the current economic crisis? I have created a web page if you care to see it (http://carloscruz.homestead.com/CRA.html). The sheer volume of information to explain my position is annotated in writing and videos as to why I believe the Democrats, staring with two Democratic Presidents, Carter and Clinton laid the foundation for this current economic crisis. Beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act and ending with the failure of Democrats (mainly Democratic Senators Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts) FAILED to pass the Federal Housing Regulatory Act Of 2005.
In fact, The New York Times on September 11, 2003, said "The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan a decade ago... a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry." That article is almost FIVE years before the fall of the GSEs (September 7, 2008).
John McCain saw this collapse coming as far back as 2005 and not only warned of the coming collapse but co-sponsored legislation to try and prevent it and go after the corruption that was causing much of the problem. McCain's speech on the Senate floor fell on deaf ears during the debate of Federal Housing Regulatory Act Of 2005 urging the Senate to pass the Act which was blocked by Senate Democrats. I know some will argue that the Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate, but I hate reminding folks of the “filibuster.” In 2005 legislation had to pass with 60 votes. Democrats voted along party lines and Republicans did not muster enough votes to pass Federal Housing Regulatory Act Of 2005. Do not confuse McCain’s Republican Political Views with his responsibility to the American People to want to REGULATE Freddie and Fannie.
Anyone who believes regulation will save the economy, but believes on the whole that regulation is Bad should seriously reexamine his political views.
Social Security is a SAFETY NET -- not a means to prosperity for a lucky few. Under Bush's scheme (which McCain voted for) some would do well, and others would do poorly -- it's the nature of the market. That's great for those who do well -- and sucks for those who bought a defective safety net.
Social Security is running pretty well the way it is; it's a myth that it's anywhere near the calamity that these "fixes" are proposed to solve.
And what a surprise that you believe Democrats started this crisis. The CRA was running smoothly for years -- from Carter through Clinton. It only started getting out of hand during Bush II's term, so maybe.. just maybe... there's another factor involved.
Frankly, I think the CRA is being scapegoated because... well, as a way of sideways blaming this crisis on "minorities." I'm not saying that's your agenda -- I'm just saying it's the agenda of those who floated the idea in the first place. Here's a piece on it:
http://tinyurl.com/3sjcfj
Look, when it comes down to it, I'm not an economist. I don't *know* this shit, I just know what I read. And the sources I trust are telling the the CRA line is bull.
And the fact that an anonymous stranger has come online to peddle that line to me makes your entire argument suspect. You're obviously armed with a whole array of talking points, and have come onto blogger (start date Oct. 2008) for the express purpose of disseminating them before the election. But I don't know you, and I'm not going to spend time chasing down the provenance of your sources when I'm 90 percent sure I'll find them suspect and 100 percent sure you won't change my vote. Jesus Himself couldn't change my vote if He came down from heaven and spanked me.
Thank you for your time, but I'm not biting.
Rob I am not an economis either. I am a Soldier from Brooklyn, N.Y, I am a Sergeant Major currently serving in my 22 year in the United States Army, I am a father of four; twin girls of 14, two son 20 and 23, who also are serving in the Army, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq; I am a husband of 24 years. My sources for my research are pretty close to impeccable FackCheck.com, PolitiCheck.com, Tax Foundation, Tax Policy Center, Wikipedia, American Enterprise Institude, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the web sites of BarackObama.com, JohnMcCain.com.
I am an Independent and neither Obama or McCain are my choices, but IMHO it is the responsibility of everyone to ensure that we understand what a candidate stands for and how their proposals will affect the Americam People and to that end I have researched both candidates and formed my conclusions.
I am comfortable with my choice and a respect your choice. I am comfortable with my opinion and the subtance upon which my opinions are based on. If you feel am suspect, then prove me wrong, but to suggest that I as a father and husband, and soldier that my opinions are some how suspect because I counter your opinions with substance, and you dismiss them without so much as conducting any research on any ONE of my points or my sources is a fundementally weak position.
I am willing to discuss our points and If I made you feel in any way that this was personal it is NOT. I'm not looking to change you opnion. My purpose is to inform those people who are on the fense and it those votes I want to reach. It is through this blogs here and in eight states and opposing views I use at a platform to inform readers. I woulnd't be much of communicator if I didn't make sure that my sourse are without question.
Sir,
First of all, thank you and your sons for your service to this country. No matter where else we disagree, I do appreciate that.
Second, I'm sorry if I get my back up about this. But when I talk about these things, I talk about them with friends and family members. It's not often -- it's not ever -- when someone comes out of the blue to talk to me about them, especially armed with so many links and figures. And the lateness of the hour when I read them contributed a bit to my mood, I have to say.
Again, I have to reiterate -- I'm not a numbers guy. This is a numbers post, but you'll see that the heart of it is empathy for the little guy -- the little guy who I was once, and in many ways still am. And I think, despite the other evidence you've provided (and I *have* looked at some of it), Obama *still* offers greater tax relief for the middle and lower-middle class, as well as the poor, whereas McCain's plan puts more tax cuts in the upper echelon. (It has been argued that those tax cuts are better for the economy as a whole, but I'm willing to take these past 8 years as evidence that that isn't true.) When it comes down to it, I'm not concerned about the rich. Half of a whole lot still leaves them with much, much more than 75 percent of next-to-nothing.
Anyway, I guess what I'm leading up to is this: Most of the other things you've cited are tangents. Connected, perhaps, but tangents. (For instance -- I never brought up Social Security; you did, and I'm not sure why.) And each tangent takes us further and further away from the point of my post.
Honestly, I think you should probably start your own blog. It'll give you the freedom and scope to explore whichever topics you want to explore.
Because this is a month-old post you're commenting on, in a blog that's mostly references to Popeye and zombies and crime novels and Batman. I'm not sure this is the forum you're looking for.
Nah, this is the forum he's looking for- his mistake is that he thought you'd bite.
BTW, no one who just started blogging in October uses "IMHO".
Rob, I guess I mistook your blog "that's mostly references to Popeye and zombies" becasue I saw your political comments on the candidates tax proposals.
No were in my comments did I stated that one should bite on my position. I presented an intelligent referenced opposing opinion and let you or anyone else who read it to make up their own minds. In addition I clearly stated that have been blogging not only in this state, but in EIGHT others. This is definately not new to me.
Rob, Sharon, I apologies if I intefered in your blog. I didn't realize that presenting an opposing opinion would have such a negative affect. I will not be bloging any more. Thank you for taking the time to listen.
Having just spent too much time skimming the comments exchange here, I feel like I ought to tack on something.
As a member of that $19K-$38K group, I'll confirm that $770 a year makes a big difference. It's more than half of my annual auto insurance; or it's half of my real estate taxes; or it's my water bill for a year.
And as blogging comments go, a little proofreading could prevent my cavalier dismissal of the poster's views.
I am a mother of two from El, Paso, Texas and I spent abour 45 minutes reading the exchange and I don't know if I believe everything that was said, but Greg maybe you skimmed over the part the soldier said about the people in OUR tax bracket? Considering the candidates tax and health care plans our tax bracket under McCain's plan would recieve $1,020 more than Obama's plan($2,553-$1,433). As a Nurse/LVN and mother of two I think he presented something for me to look into and think about. I do agree though your proofreading is a bit Cavalier
Thanks, MariaC.
Hey, do you know SergeantMajor? I'm just asking because you both have the same location, service provider and IP address.
Say hi to Jill Hazelbaker for me!
Oh, for pity's sake.
"I do agree though your proofreading is a bit Cavalier" ?
Huh?
My proofreading is a bit "Cavalier" [sic]? My proofreading? Does this person have any idea what I was referring to?
Did anyone bother to look up the word? And why is it capitalized? Nice shot at a personal touch, but very wide of the mark.
This only increases my inclination to think that comments on this thread are the cut-and-paste work of some industrious GOP volunteers.
I actually took that last sentence to be directed at her co-worker/alter ego.
Post a Comment