Follow by Email

Monday, October 20, 2008

Why Should Kids Pay For McCain's Tax Cuts For The Rich?

Jed Report Post:

John McCain is now basically resting his campaign on the argument that Barack Obama is a terrorist and a socialist. The first is absurdly false, and the second is just name calling without any real meaning.

So instead of throwing about rhetoric, let's take a look at the actual numbers behind the competing tax plans offered by Obama and McCain.

The chart below was created using data published last Tuesday by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute on both the McCain and Obama tax plans.

The chart shows the average tax cut for each income bracket in 2009, up to $200,000. (See the next chart for super-high incomes.)

As you can see, according to the Tax Policy Institute, each bracket under $100,000 annual income would receive a much larger tax cut under Barack Obama's plan than under John McCain's, and there's virtually no difference between $100,000 and $200,000.

Obama McCain Taxes

Perhaps the most striking difference between the two plans is how each handles income above $1 million. McCain would aggressively cut taxes, saving an average million dollar earner more than $80,000 per year.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, would increase marginal taxes, resulting in a tax increase of a bit over $160,000 on average.

Taxes On Income Over $1 million

John McCain is calling Barack Obama a socialist because he says Obama's tax plan is a redistribution of wealth. That's really just hot air, especially in light of the fact that John McCain's tax plan cuts taxes without paying for them.

The bottom-line is that while Barack Obama does pay for his tax cuts for the middle class by raising taxes on the super-wealthy, John McCain doesn't pay for his tax cuts -- and that means the burden will be shifted to the next generation of taxpayers.

So if McCain wants to talk about redistribution of wealth, he should start by explaining why he think the next generation ought to pay for his tax cuts, most of which will go to the wealthiest Americans who need them the least.

No comments: