« Another Poll Underlines Dangers Of McCain’s Negative Campaigning
Is Obama Doing Enough to Get Out the Black Vote? »



More Voters Think McCain Will Raise Their Taxes

October 15th, 2008
By ELYAS BAKHTIARI

Print Print

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.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm and is filed under John McCain, Newsweek Blogitics, Taxes, Barack Obama, Polls, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 14 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    This, children, is what we call "epic fail."
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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?
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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-...
    • ^
    • v
    "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.
    • ^
    • v
    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...
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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 polic