Obama’s middle class tax cut plan three times the amount of McCain’s.

Another entry in the continuing saga of Why I’m Voting for Obama:

Nashuatelegraph.com: Analysts say Obama offers three times the tax break for middle class

CONCORD – The tax cut plan of Democratic nominee to be Barack Obama offers three times the break for middle class families than proposals of likely Republican nominee John McCain, according to analysts working for a left-leaning think tank.

Families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain’s tax cut for this group would be $319, the report states.

“The choice in November for tax policy may be the largest voters have ever had in this country,” said Jason Furman, director of economic policy for Barack Obama’s campaign.

“John McCain’s tax cut is far larger, more regressive and far more radical than anything President George W. Bush has ever proposed. Barack Obama is proposing one of the largest income tax cuts for the middle class in American history.”

I think the rich folks got enough tax breaks under Bush. Time for the middle class to get a few breaks. Of course the McCain campaign is trying their best to rain on Obama’s parade:

“Barack Obama voted 94 times to raise taxes in just three years in the Senate. Any suggestion that he’ll lower taxes for hard-working New Hampshire families is an insult to their intelligence,” said Jeff Grappone, McCain’s New England communications director.

“Facts are facts. Barack Obama has promised higher income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and tax hikes on small businesses. These tax hikes will hit middle class Americans and seniors hardest, and it’s change we can’t afford.”

I have no doubts that some taxes will go up, most likely as a result of letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but the fact remains that McCain’s plan is aimed squarely at the folks who need the help the least. It’s just the same failed economic policies of the current administration all over again. What’s amazing to me is the fact that back in 2001 McCain decried the Bush tax cuts saying: ”“I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.” So why is he proposing a plan that’s even worse than the one he complained about back in 2001?

Here’s some more on the differences between the two plans:

Once fully implemented, the report finds 23 percent of McCain’s tax cut goes to the wealthiest Americans making more than $2.8 million a year.

McCain’s plan give this group an average tax cut of $270,000, the report said. By contrast, Obama would raise taxes for these wealthy families by an average $700,000 a year according to the report.

Obama pays for his plan in part by raising the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 25 percent. McCain eventually sets those rates to be no higher than 15 percent.

The individual authors of this 36-page report work for the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

[…] The report contends that the total cost of McCain’s plan is under-estimated by phasing it in and having some breaks already schedule to expire in future years. “Like President Bush’s tax cuts, the true cost of McCain’s policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimate costs,” the report states.

It also contends both candidates overestimate revenue they would get from closing corporate tax loopholes.

“As noted, both candidates may be over-optimistic in their revenue targets for tax loopholes closers – Obama probably more than McCain,” it states. McCain also fails to identify enough cuts in federal spending to help pay for his plan, the report concludes.

I’ll update this entry later if I can track down a link to the full report.

6 thoughts on “Obama’s middle class tax cut plan three times the amount of McCain’s.

  1. So why is he proposing a plan that’s even worse than the one he complained about back in 2001?

    Because, as every Republican knows, your record doesn’t count.  What counts is what you tell people, not what you DO.

  2. I really look forward to the day when RAISING TAXES!!!! loses it’s stigma that for no rationale reason it has. We need taxes to be a bit higher and have better oversight of governmental programs and better efficiency. And none of these should be a bad thing. Why we still spend over $20 Billion on cold war funding I have no idea?

  3. I actually heard a McCain spokesperson use the phrase “trickle down” today. Yea, like that worked so well the LAST time.

  4. I actually heard a McCain spokesperson use the phrase “trickle down” today. Yea, like that worked so well the LAST time.

    Why not?  As far as the Republicans are concerned, every decade or so… everything old is new again.  That’s what you get from not reading history.  What bothers me is that they get people to buy it, which makes me think they do read history, but they repackage it.  It’s the people who vote for them who don’t.

  5. Barack Obama’s economic policies would hurt the economy. As Kimberly Strassel recently put it in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Obama is hawking a tax policy that would take the nation back to the effective marginal tax rates of the Carter days. He wants to further tax income, payroll, capital gains, dividends and death. His philosophy is pure redistribution.”

    When Barack Obama speaks of taxing only the wealthy, keep in mind this could have a devastating effect on new small businesses. As Irwin Stelzer has written: “Taxes change behavior. By raising rates on upper income payers, Obama is reducing their incentive to work and take risks. The income tax increase is not all that he has in mind for them. He plans to increase their payroll taxes, the taxes they pay on dividends received and capital gains earned, and on any transfers they might have in mind to their kith and kin when they shuffle off this mortal coil. If the aggregate of these additional taxes substantially diminishes incentives to set up a small business of the sort that has created most of the new jobs in recent decades, the $1,000 tax rebate will be more than offset by the consequences of reduced growth and new business formation.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.