This article has a nice chart and for households making less than 111,000, you will get a bigger tax cut from Obama. So although McCain has a bigger overall tax cut, it’s so concentrated on the wealthy that a large majority of tax payers will see a small tax cut from him than from Obama.
Right now I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone pays attention to politicians talking about what they will do with taxes.
It’s not their choice. It’s a group choice of whichever legislative body they happen to be a part of. In the case of Presidents, what they get to do is lobby for their plan, and then veto or pass whatever they are handed.
I thought that chart was terrible, by the way. It’s not labeled properly; looks like it was done by an idiot. What the heck are the bars to the left of the line labeled percent? Absolute percent change? Percent of taxes? Marginal rate percent? And how is it helpful to know that someone making more than 2.9 million will pay “an average” of $700,000 more in taxes without knowing the average income that will produce that number?
Most pre-election tax talk is nonsense. It’s a game of buying voters. The most nonsensical figures right now involve capital gains. I don’t know anyone who is going to be paying any capital gains for a long, long time. Most of us have enough capital losses to hold off paying capital gains for the forseeable future.
I disagree that we shouldn’t examine the tax proposals of the candidates. Yes Congress will have a voice, but the proposals represent a statement of intent and do indicate what the candidates will push for when negotiating with Congress. The tax cuts that Bush passed were pretty similar to what he proposed as a candidate and Obama is likely to get something close to what he is proposing as well.
As for the chart, as with any summary measure there will be a loss of information which is compensated by the fact that you get a clearer view of the big picture. I don’t think chart distorts the basic difference between the two proposals. Obama proposes raising taxes on wealthy but will give tax cuts to most taxpayers. McCain proposes big tax cuts for the wealthy and smaller tax cuts for the middle class. Obama will offer bigger tax cuts to most tax payers compared to McCain.
This has the detailed analysis but I don’t think the details change the big picture.
Uh read my lips - everyone uh, that is people making under $250,000 will get a cut… uh, will not see an increase… uh under $150,000 that is. $200,000 and uh under will pay no… uh, less… uh not pay more taxes. Uh, that’s right, no one earning under $111,000…
Sounds familiar, but I’m not voting for someone because they’ll maybe cut my taxes a few hundred bucks.
The increased price of high capacity assault rifle magazines will counteract the cut, anyway
Everyone under 200k would get a tax cut under Obama’s program.
Everyone under 111k would get a bigger tax cut than McCain would give under Obama’s program.
Those two statements do not contradict each other.
It’s not hard to understand. Obama’s plan has always specified tax cuts for those up to $200,000, and no net change under $250,000. Examining the various speeches, media releases, independent analyses and policy papers - this is unequivocally clear. It has never wavered or changed in the slightest.
The closest thing you can get to underscoring any ambiguity whatsoever is Biden giving an example of $150,000, which was as much as slip of the tongue as anything. It’s an incredibly obtuse reading to attempt to paint that as sowing legitimate doubt.
Going by that weak-sauce standard - I wonder if you’re holding McCain accountable for his various slips of the tongue. And I’m not talking about stupid campaign gaffes, but matters of substance.
I mean, we’re told how much McCain is a competent military leader and potential commander in chief. But what say you to his repeated demonstrations of profound confusion on national security issues, such as Iran training al Qaeda in Iraq, mixing up Sunni and Shia, creating imaginary borders between countries, etc? I would assume you would say he deserves the benefit of the doubt, contra his various misstatements, yes?
Any tax cut to anyone is foolish. They need to rll back all the GWB tax cuts for his rich buddies and forget a tax cut.
If someone was holding up McCain’s life-changing tax cuts, then yes I would. Especially around starry-eyed kool-aid swillers that suggest one should sell their vote for a few hundred bucks.
Papa Bush tried a variation of this promise and I laughed at people that believed him, too. Dubya has actually done it a couple of times and it didn’t impress me. Is anyone making under $100,000 crippled by their income tax bill? I’m sure not.
Revamp the entire tax code and I might be interested, playing with smoke and mirrors isn’t impressive.
The problem is, 15% of the nation makes $150,000 or more per year. Of these 15% they purchase 41% of all big ticket items. It’s defined as those costing $1,000 or more per item.
THIS is what drives the economy NOT the little purchases. This explains WHY so much of what is available, is not popular with the public. Because it appeals to only the small number of people who can buy it.
Unless these 15% of the top spend, the economy won’t improve. So a tax cut for the middle class isn’t gonna help much, as it’s gonna go for bill on things already bought. Poor people don’t pay much tax anyway.
Cite that 45 million people make 150K+ a year?
Everyone needs to spend for the economy to improve, not the top 15%.
Poor people pay plenty in taxes, just not much in federal income taxes. Note that “poor people” aren’t typically defined as people making less than 150k.
I should probably highlight this, as the fact is that the top 15% earn more than 50% of the AGI of all taxpayers, so even if your claim is true (we’ll see how that pans out), they’re still spending less on big ticket items as a percentage of their income than those poorer than them. Should we bitch them out for not pulling their share of the load?
I suggest you re-read the chapter on GDP in your Econ 101 textbook. It’s simply not true that big ticket items play a special role in GDP; there is no weighting system which gives higher weights to some items over others in GDP. What matters is the total expenditure not the per unit price. 10,000 units priced at 1$ contribute exactly the same to GDP as 10 units priced at $1000.
Tax cuts aren’t even the best way to stimulate aggregate demand because a portion of a tax cut will be saved (and typically the rich will save more than the middle class). This is why as your 101 text book would tell you, the multiplier is higher for government spending than a tax cut. Among tax cuts, a middle class tax cut would offer a bigger stimulus than one focussed on the wealthy.