So much gets lost in the sound bites and finger-pointing of presidential campaigns that it’s sometimes tough to know what the respective candidates really believe–or seem to believe–on various issues. This morning’s Columbus Dispatch has an excellent and readable overview of the McCain and Obama tax proposals. You can find it here.
The last few paragraphs especially interested me:
William A. Raabe, a tax professor at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, argued that the candidates aren’t really talking about something that could have the largest effect on average workers: Social Security and Medicare.
Realistically addressing the long-term solvency problems of both entitlement programs could mean an increase in taxes or reduction in benefits, Raabe said. He also argued that the Wal-Mart worker is more likely to be affected by state and local taxes than changes in federal policy.
Serious questions also remain about how much discretionary spending will be available for either McCain or Obama to pursue his agenda, with the financial markets in turmoil and the government’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout to be enacted.
There also are broader philosophical questions raised by tax policy and the issue of what is fair, depending on which class benefits and your point of view.
Under McCain’s plan, is it fair to have the wealthiest enjoy such a large share of the tax cuts in dollars, while lower-income groups struggle with rising prices?
Under Obama’s plan, is it fair for the rich to pay a higher percentage than anyone else? And is it right that such a relatively small slice of Americans shoulders so much tax burden, with many people paying little for services?
Read the whole thing.
My personal blog is here.