fair: everyone pays the same tax amount
fair with compassion: we use a tax rate so the people with more money pay proportionate to their income
Fair with a TON of compassion: we use a PROGRESSIVE tax RATE so the rich pay EVEN MORE of the taxes
STUPID and bad for the U.S.A: a more progressive rate than we have now. we don't want to be socialistic
- 1
- 2
A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.
Put It on Our Tab
The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame. The TPC also found that:
Tax Policy Center (Aug 28): Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.
The Obama campaign maintains that the Tax Policy Center's estimates don't account for Obama's proposed spending cuts, including things like ending the Iraq war. But those cuts will not come close to balancing the budget, and Obama has avoided promising a balanced budget during his first term.
McCain, however, has said he will balance the budget by 2013. Experts remain skeptical. In early July, The New York Times quotedRobert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group — as saying the claim was "unlikely":
Robert L. Bixby (as quoted by The New York Times, July 8): It's feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can't see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.
McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin sent The Washington Post's editorial board a copy of McCain's plan in support of the candidate's claim. But the board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the plan was "not credible."
So the ad's claims about deficit spending and "no balanced budgets"? They could be applied just as easily to McCain as to Obama and the Dems. And we're not sure McCain really wants to go there.
Republished with permission from factcheck.org.
Sources
Burman, Len, et. al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008." Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.
Table T08-0182, Senator McCain's Tax Proposals as Described by his Economic Advisors, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009. Tax Policy Center, 19 July 2008.
Gleckman, Roberton Williams and Howard. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." 28 August 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 29 August 2008
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, "Table T08-0203 - Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax), Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009" 14 Aug 2008.
Rohter, Larry. Will the Real Tax-and-Spender Please 'Fess Up?. 13 Jun. 2008. The New York Times. 2 Sep. 2008.
© 2008
- 1
- 2











Discuss