THE PLANK OCTOBER 15, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin slammed Obama's tax plan today, saying, "Obama has proposed a ‘tax cut' for 95 percent of people when, literally, almost 40 percent pay no federal income taxes at all." He cited a recent New York Post editorial labeling Obama's tax cuts "welfare."
It is true that Obama has proposed several tax credits that include families who earn too little to owe income taxes, a group that include about half of families with children. But many of these families work and pay thousands of dollars in other taxes. For example, a family of four must earn about $25,000 before owing income taxes--but they must pay payroll taxes on the first dollar they earn. Indeed, Obama's biggest refundable credit is designed to cushion the blow of payroll taxes.
Refundable credits are also often the most economically efficient way to help families, according to now-CBO director Peter Orszag. Maybe that's why McCain's own health care plan uses refundable credits.
But McCain is echoing Phil Gramm's and Newt Gingrich's old claim here that tax credits for low-income workers amount to welfare. The Wall Street Journal editorial page charmingly referred to people too poor to pay income taxes as "lucky duckies."
As a presidential candidate, George W. Bush "sandbagged" these Republicans by defending the earned income tax credit. Now McCain is standing with Gramm and Gingrich, to the right of Bush.
8 comments
Phil Gramm, now there's a great American, as Sean Hannity would blubber.
This article by Joe Conason is a must read, and it's only six months old. How quickly so many of us forget:
www.salon.com/.../mccain_gramm
- fougasseu
October 15, 2008 at 2:55pm
The tax code is a horrible mess and Obama's new targeted refundable tax credits appear to only make it messier.
That said, a negative income tax is **Milton Friedman's** proposal for increasing the economic security of the least well-off. Gingrich et al are not too far off the mark when they call it "welfare," but of all the ways to redistribute income, this has got to be the least objectionable.
The other problem, however, which I don't understand as well, is that Obama has apparently raised effective marginal tax rates (while reducing average tax burdens) on some in the middle class.
They'll have more money in their pocket to begin with, but slightly less incentive to work for the next extra dollar. That's not great from an incentive standpoint, but it's subtle enough that I'm not sure how much deadweight loss it will truly incur.
- mkayser0
October 15, 2008 at 3:02pm
A couple of things about the payroll tax and fairness. Most (I believe it is between 70% and 80%) taxpayers pay more payroll (social security) tax than income tax. The payroll tax is a flat rate (roughly 15%) and applies only on the first roughly $100,000 of earned income (not including capital gains, divdends, and interest). For low income tax payers (i.e., those who pay no income tax), they pay a marginal federal tax rate of 15%. For middle income taxpayers (those earning up to $100,000 per year), they pay a marginal federal tax rate of over 40%. For upper income taxpayers who earn millions per year from interest, dividends, and capital gains (including the infamous hedge fund managers), they pay a marginal federal tax rate of 15%. The guy in the middle is getting hammered, while those on the ends are getting off (relatively speaking) lightly. Is it any wonder that it is the middle income taxpayers who are in a rage.
- raylward
October 15, 2008 at 3:34pm
MCCAIN CAMPAIGN CONFUSED ABOUT PAYROLL TAXES.... For about a week now, Republicans have been trying to make the case that Barack Obama is exaggerating his tax cut proposal. Obama has argued that his policy would give 95% of Americans a...
- Anonymous
October 15, 2008 at 4:07pm
Well said, Ray.
If these duckies are so fucking lucky, why doesn't Phil "Captain Deregulation" Gramm join them? I mean, if life is SO GREAT at $8/hr, with all those entitlements and freebies they receive from the government, why doesn't he go join them?
He could donate all of his wealth to any number of worthwhile charities, get a nice job as an office temp, and live it up! He could get all his hoity-toity friends together, and have a big fucking party with all those entitlements and freebies they'll get!
- GSpinks
October 15, 2008 at 4:35pm
I fail to understand why a marginal income tax rate of 28% might act as a disincentive for someone to earn more money. Or even 30-40%. I could probably make more money outside of academia, but I'm pretty happy with my job. I don't moonlight for extra cash because I am doing OK, and I'd rather spend my time doing something else rather than bringing in a few extra bucks. It would take a drastic and improbable change in our tax codes to change that decision.
- JEFF FREY
October 15, 2008 at 4:49pm
Yeah. You tell 'em Brother Phil and the McCain camp. And what about all those people at the mall and the supermarket who get to park closer than everyone else. Why should they get to park closer than me?
Its always, "I'm 83 and I have severe arthritis." or "I lost my leg in a logging accident."
Whiners.
I'm not conflating able-bodied workers with the disabled, just saying that inserting a little compassion into the tax code doesn't seem so bad. And in this case it has the advantage of being good economic policy. People at the lower end of the economic scale will likely spend almost all of that extra revenue on goods and services, thus stimulating the economy. Although admittedly, many will waste it needlessly paying mortgages and credit cards to banks that will be insolvent by week's end.
- sgraser
October 15, 2008 at 4:54pm
Too bad the EITC's former cheerleader-in-chief, the sainted Ronald Reagan, disagrees with Gramm, Gingrich, and the rest of the Merry Poopsters on tax credits.
- jfelliott
October 15, 2008 at 5:04pm