More Voters Think McCain Will Raise Their Taxes
Observers who claim Obama’s success is only because of luck and a bad economy are seriously underestimating his skills as a politician. What Democrat, other than Obama, could have turned one of the most successful Republican talking points of the last 30 years completely on its head. Take a look at this nugget from the latest CBS poll showing Obama with a 14-point lead:
Which candidate will raise your taxes? Respondents, by 51% to 46%, say it’s McCain.
Now compare that with a Gallup poll from September in which 53% of respondents said Obama would raise their taxes, compared to 34% who said McCain.
Yes, it is in part due to political malpractice on McCain’s part. But until recently, McCain hit Obama harder on taxes than perhaps any other issue, and not only is Obama still standing, he’s winning the argument.
14 Responses to “More Voters Think McCain Will Raise Their Taxes”
This, children, is what we call “epic fail.”
Well, so many people believe Someone Else is going to be taxed and pay for all those promises Obama has been making, don't forget. Classic Dem appeal.
Does anyone know if it's actually true though? I mean, I've seen the little graphs put out by CNN or whomever of the tax plans, and it does look like my taxes will not go up under either, given my household income. I've heard from Obama that he won't raise my taxes, and from McCain that Obama will. I've heard talking points from the right that say that it's more complicated than that, and it very well may be. In all earnestness: can someone who thinks that Obama will raise my taxes (I am firmly middle class) tell me how it's more complicated?
Skills as a politician, indeed. One should never understimate the ability of a skilled politician to convince people that up is down and down is up.
Of course, one would think that the people in question would eventually realize this and find fault in the politician for it instead of praising his 'skill' in having duped them.
roro: I think a large part of the problem is that any analysis is done on the campaign promises, which often have little to do with reality anyway and should be taken with grains of salt.
My basic understanding is that McCain proposes fewer changes to the status quo on personal income tax, planning to renew the Bush cuts but not further cut on fed income tax…he does propose though to offer a more simplified method of filing (with option to continue the current way for those masochists who like to do so.)
Obama will raise both personal federal income tax and FICA for certain people in upper middle class and/or owners of larger small businesses (because those companies are taxes as though they're individual earners, not corporations.) Obama acknowledged this here, and said that the reason for doing so was because he feels it's best to 'spread the wealth around.'
Obama also says he plans to give a tax CUT to 95% of earners, but in reality many of these people (30-40%) don't pay any federal income tax anyway, so this is a creative way to relabel a tax credit as a tax cut.
From what I understand, it's very possible that if you're someone in the median of income, your liability may not change much under either man as president. I would hope though, that in addition to thinking through how our own taxes will be affected, we all also consider what is best for the economy in terms of overall tax policy.
I wonder what sources people are using.
Did anyone else see this today? (Pew) Limbaugh rated above BBC; NPR stellar.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-…
“Obama also says he plans to give a tax CUT to 95% of earners, but in reality many of these people (30-40%) don't pay any federal income tax anyway, so this is a creative way to relabel a tax credit as a tax cut.”
If Obama wants to proceed with at least some of his vast spending, and he doesn't want to increase the federal debt, then he's going to have to change his tax policy with the income tax (because of the nature of aggregate US income and the income distribution) or, as I've mentioned elsewhere, he's going to have to impose other kinds of taxes or “revenue enhancements” in place of income tax increases.
I hope a decent number of people have read “Obama's 95% Illusion” in the Journal.
If readers here have not:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727…
CStanley — Thanks for the input. I do understand that what someone puts in their campaign promises is not necessarily how things turn out, but I also think it's fair to say that (on both sides) the plan they've laid out is at least their intention at this point. I'm curious, though, about the 30-40% of people you say aren't paying federal income tax now. Are you talking about kids and people without jobs? I don't know the tax code that well, but when I was a minimum-wage office worker, I was still paying fed taxes, although much less than I am now.
DLS — I definitely see what you're saying, but I think that at least some of the difference is made up through other plans. For instance, in California we currently have a huge revenue problem because so many of the people who were working in construction and real estate 3 years ago now don't have jobs, and therefore don't pay taxes. Property tax revenue took a huge dive as well. In other states, it's also a problem of having lost so many manufacturing jobs shipped over seas — less tax revenue. All those people out of work — or even just having to take lower-paying jobs or going a few months on unemployment — feeds into the downcycle because they don't have the money to be consumers. Now, if we could get those people back working in jobs here in the States, make sure college kids can pay for school and have well-paying jobs waiting for them when they get out, get people buying their iPods and jeans and houses and cars, well, that all creates a lot of extra tax revenue. I guess what I'm thinking here is that his tax plan seems to be implemented and complemented by other plans that will hopefully raise overall individual income, and therefore create more revenue. I haven't done the math, of course, to see how that would compare with the spending programs he's proposing.
Hey, Roro — I had to go back to the Bay Area last week and didn't want to leave. Nice weather there!
I have two points to make about the property taxes.
First, I have long advocated that these taxes not be based on what is subjective and subject to change as well, the assessed value? There's no need. Why not do what landlords do with commercial real estate, namely levy taxes based on square footage, something that is objective, not subject to market-related fluctuations, and disputes over which can be checked with a tape measure and a calculator?
I suppose that is _too_ objective, simple, practical, and stable ever to be tried.
Second, the tax situation is compounded because of Prop 13 and again, home values as the basis for taxation. Two identical homes on two identical parcels of land on the same street should have identical tax bills, but they don't because of Prop 13. Pre-1978 homeowners are free riders, while late arrivals are overtaxed grossly. It's simply not right. The retort that the earlier homeowners risked being put out of their homes doesn't negate the problem; it just now describes the problem of later arrivals (recent purchasers of homes). Taxes should be reasonable for _all_, not for a free-riding privileged minority. The free riders add to the tax problem.
Aside from that, there is the problem there of spending and liberal politics and economic policies (Sacramento has been run by Democrats for ages; those of us who grew up in California know well the story of Willie Brown long before he became a mayor of San Francisco). Note that a number of businesses and jobs have left California due to high costs. (It's only a matter of time before substantial work at Boeing's commercial aircraft division moves from Seattle to Witchita for the same reason.)
As to the people out of work — it remains to be seen if this had the same weight in favor of bailing out Detroit's automakers that it had in the early 1980s with Chrysler.
I'm not sure where all the money will come from (I doubt it would be from high new taxes on motor vehicle fuels in the name of conservation and environmentalism) for Obama's plans, but conceivably, the putting-to-work issue would be helped by a big infrastructure replacement and new-construction program. In California, to name one example, Los Angeles metro could use at least two all-new, quite long, multi-lane freeways, the 39 and the Century-extension or Slauson-90 extension to Santa Ana Canyon. California could really benefit from what I have long supported, development of the Monterey Bay area into a new national-class metro area rivaling SF, LA, and San Diego (it would be larger than Santa Barbara, obviously — could reach all the way inland to Salinas, and would feature a world-class shipping port on the coast with shipping routes aligned with the underwater canyon).
Back to Obama — his Social Security plan won't save the program and I still find his “doughnut hole” between the approximate current limit (high 90s) and 250K to be puzzling (and working against the plan's objective).
New taxes are the worst thing that could be imposed now, with a slump coming, but after recovery, perhaps going to a consumption tax would make sense (I'd like to see a value-added tax replace the hated income tax). Japan, I believe, imposed a new tax shortly after its real estate bubble burst and that likely made its recession worse.
Also, on the infrastructure projects (a big issue for many), will there be “prevailing wage” pro-union laws, hire-American laws, affirmative-action laws, etc., governing who gets hired to do the work (companies as well as employees, and at what cost to the taxpayers)?
DLS — I can see it now…two TMV commenters…passing unbeknownst to each other… on the sunny streets of San Francisco…
As for your property tax points, I guess in certain ways I agree with you, but I just don't see how it could be done fairly. How do you parse what regions pay what tax per square foot? In any large city (presumably under the same tax laws within city borders), this method would undertax people in the nice neighborhoods and overtax those in less-nice neighborhoods, driving housing prices up in one and down in another area of the same city. I can't even tell if that would be bad or not. And if you buy a fixer-upper or a non-livable dwelling, how do you get taxed? Certainly there's some combination of theoretical tax rules that would make things better than they are, but I don't think a straight square-footage rule is it.
As for Prop 13, again, I totally understand where you're coming from, but with the way housing prices change so rapidly, how do propose to keep people in their homes? How do I know if I can even afford a home if I have no idea what inflation (and therefore my tax amount) will be next year or the year afterwards? My grandpa lives just outside of the Bay Area in a ranch house. Same house his family built after his dad escaped the Bolshevic Revolution. He is now on a low fixed income after a lifetime of hard work. If he had to pay taxes on the current value of his property, I'm sure just the land value alone would have meant he was taxed out of his home. That's just not right. How do you fix that problem? Again, I don't think the current situation is good, I just think your solution would be worse — not that I have a better one.
Agreed on everything about the infrastructure.
I don't know much about Social Security, but for some reason I feel that it's a made-up problem meant to dupe the American public into privatizing the whole thing. Thank Goddess it didn't get to that, even if my conspiracy theory is way off base.
I'm curious, though, about the 30-40% of people you say aren't paying federal income tax now. Are you talking about kids and people without jobs? I don't know the tax code that well, but when I was a minimum-wage office worker, I was still paying fed taxes, although much less than I am now.
No Roro, I'm not talkign about non-wage earners like kids or the unemployed. Fact is that among those who earn income and have to file a federal return, right now it's somewhere between 30-40% who end up paying zero or even netting a positive return…that's due to the way the brackets are structured (lowest income is 0%) and then the cumulative effects of deductions and earned income tax credits.
You are right that when you were a young single worker and perhaps didn't earn much you still had withholding, and may have even ended up paying federal income tax rather than getting it all back in a refund. But over time, more and more credits have been added for children, credits for the 'working poor', etc…my understanding is that much of the 30-40% are single parent, working mothers with low income.
Now, we could debate about whether or not that is good policy- I'm not arguing that one way or another and I certainly don't want kids of single mothers to go without food or shelter. But all I'm saying is that if Obama feels that we currently need to increase the tax credits (which are in fact income redistribution) to those who don't pay federal income tax, he should say so and be straight with voters.
I don't know much about Social Security, but for some reason I feel that it's a made-up problem meant to dupe the American public into privatizing the whole thing. Thank Goddess it didn't get to that, even if my conspiracy theory is way off base
Roro: Hate to break it to you, but the “some reason” is probably because that's the propaganda line that the Democratic party has been using for decades now. It's notable, I think, that Barney Frank and friends were also loudly proclaiming that there was no problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac just a short time ago…
Don't get me wrong, the GOP propagandizes about other things, but in all seriousness check out some facts about SS before writing it off as a non-problem.