"Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama would both cut taxes for the majority of Americans, with Sen. McCain, the Republican contender, awarding the biggest cut to the richest Americans and Sen. Obama, the Democrat, favoring those at the bottom of the income scale, according to an analysis of the candidates' plans released Wednesday."

That's how the Wall Street Journal reads a report by the Tax Policy Center. More here.

Comments

[Spag]

I read that and I am still trying to find McCain's tax cuts for the rich. I don't see them.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I heard Kevin Hassett say that Obama's tax plan would increase corporate taxes to 52 percent, despite the fact that most European nations now employ supply side/laffer curve theory in their corporate tax policies.

[Ed Cone]

I guess I'd need more details on the alleged 52% tax rate and the alleged impact of the laugher curve on European tax rates before I got too excited about either one.

[Doug H]

But we can't be worried about what the Europeans are doing. After all, they're *socialists* (scary voice). Us 'Mericans know best.

[Fred Gregory]

Spag,

You can't see them . They aren't there. They are phantom DNC talking points.

Obama when confronted with the historical fact that his plan to double the capital gains rate will will decrease revenues and act as disincetive to investment says yeah but it will provide fairness (?) and punish evil hege fund managers. Perhaps he ignores the evidence and just plain prefers higher taxes as a matter of idelogical dogma.

The Atlanta Libertarian had this to say about windfall profits tax on oil companies and other tax policies:

"Ok ... perhaps all politicians do this, but the Democrats are making it an art form. Yesterday we talked about Obama's call for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. What he's talking about is stepping up and seizing an even bigger portion of the pensions, 401K and retirement funds of middle class America; including our teachers, nurses, police officers, soldiers and firemen.

So ... what do we have for you today in the rich history of Democrats and their spokesmen? Yesterday I watched some "democrat strategist" talking about Obama's tax plans. Sure enough, I didn't have to wait long before he pulled out that Warren Buffet line about CEOs enjoying lower tax rates than their secretaries. Give a big-time break here. That idiotic line only works because the uneducated fools who hear it and cheer don't have a clue as to the little trick that is being played on them. Sadly, many news anchors don't get it either; or if they do, they roll over and play dead when the line is delivered.

Here's the scoop. What this "democrat(ic) strategist" was really referring to is the fact that capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates. The key here is that a presumption is made that the evil CEO has some investments on which he pays the 15% capital gains tax rate, while his secretary pays regular income tax rates (most likely 25%) on her earned income. What the "strategist" doesn't tell you is that the highly-paid CEO is paying 33% or more on his own earned income. Only the taxes on his capital gains are lower, and it is quite likely that his secretary has some stock in the operation as well, and is paying that 15% rate on her own capital gains. This is pure deception – a deception that these yammering yahoos can get away with because (1) most government-educated Americans can't figure out that the wool is being pulled over their eyes; and (2) the reporters who interview these prevaricators don't step up and challenge the funny numbers.

The goal here? This is Democrats stirring up class envy and wealth envy. Democrats want the very letters "CEO" to conjure up in the dumb masses feelings of anger and envy. The problems of this world are cause by evil CEOs who pay lower taxes than their poor beleaguered secretaries.

Leftists also like to rail against evil corporations. To a Democrat, the word "corporation" is an epithet (unless it is included in the phrase "Corporation for Public Broadcasting). Listen to Democrat voters -- they parrot the lines perfectly. Corporate this and corporate that. They truly believe that their lives would be all blue skies and green lights if it just wasn't for the nefarious things being done by all of these corporations.

Just what is a corporation, anyway? It's a group of people who own a business enterprise. That's is. Do you have a mutual fund? How about a 401K? Maybe a pension plan? Well .. guess what, you're probably a corporate stockholder. Democrats, like the brain-dead Maxine Waters, don't like the idea of people getting together to own a business; especially a large business. Small mom and pop operations are OK, but once the business gets too large it is time for the all-powerful government to step in and run things."

** Sorry but no link to that passage

[Ed Cone]

Fred, please don't cut and paste long swaths of copyrighted material, thnx.

"They are phantom DNC talking points." Damn that Wall Street Journal, tool of the DNC!

I think the Obama plan takes max cap gains to 25%, which isn't double current rates. One issue around fairness is that hedge fund managers get to declare their billions as cap gains, not income -- a loophole I'd like to fix.

[justcorbly]

The GOP's corporatist anti-tax and anti-government stance won't win many converts this time around. They've screwed things up enough that people are worried about much more fundamental issues.

[Fred Gregory]

Ed,
If you are going to expect readers to accept that the WSJ supports your point of view please don't link just the abstract of the article and cherry pick portions while leaving out those which would possibly undermine your argument. The linked Preview ended in mid-sentence which appeared as if it was about ready to say Obama's plan would pile up considerably more debt.

I heard he favors 28% cap gains rate which is almost double. Your math is sooo mushy when you have on your Obama hat . US News says some Dems may be looking at 40%. Obama says "fairness " is his goal. For Pete's sake 100 million American's own stocks. Again I ask fair to who...the unproductive ?

If, hopefully not, but given an Obama presidency , he would be dealing with even larger Democratic majorities in congress, and it would be logical that higher capital gains and/or income tax rates would be a definite possibility

Ed, CNN Money's Senior writer, ( not a GOP hack )Jeanne Sahadi used the same analysis by the leftist Tax Policy Center which you also linked ( and strongly implied that the WSJ bought ) to slant the differnces between McCain and Obama.

Just because an organization is billed as "non-partisan" doesn't mean it isn't pushing a political agenda

Nice try at skewing and distorting.

[Ed Cone]

What I quoted is the lede of the Wall Street Journal article: "Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama would both cut taxes for the majority of Americans, with Sen. McCain, the Republican contender, awarding the biggest cut to the richest Americans and Sen. Obama, the Democrat, favoring those at the bottom of the income scale, according to an analysis of the candidates' plans released Wednesday."

You "heard" that he would make the top rate 28%. The linked report shows 25%.

I'm not trying to skew and distort. If you have problems with the linked material, address the linked material.

[scharrison]

Trivia question: what are capital gains? Answer: income.

It's not a special new type of money, nor is it income that deserves special consideration because someone risked their other money to get it.

And yes, there's a large percentage of regular Joes and Josephines that augment their income (or retirement package) from investments of one sort or another, but most of their labor is taxed at 25%. As compared to the wealthiest of us, who derive the lion's share of their annual income from investment earnings taxed at 15%.

Income is income, plain and simple. There should be no difference between the two.

[Fred Gregory]

How shallow. The linked material is behind a pay firewall. And you don't even begin to respond to the points I made on spending, Obama's inexplicable fairness BS, the leftist TPC's agenda driven analysis ( adressing your link ), your nit picking math and finally my links suggesting the liklyhood of even higher than now being discussed Obama hikes. Just a typical GFY answer.

[Ed Cone]

I would be delighted to see the WSJ take down it's paywall, Fred, but there's not much I can do about it.

As a subscriber I see the whole article, I can't tell what's available to the public or not.

The Wall Street Journal wrote what it wrote about the TPC report. The paper doesn't seem to agree with your characterization of the group as "leftist." In any case, if you have a complaint about the data in the report, why not focus on that?

Don't see the point of your personal invective, nice if you'd dial that back a bit.

[Ed's Mom]

As a point of clarification: a corporation is recognized as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges and liabilities DISTINCT FROM THOSE OF ITS MEMBERS. A corporation is not a relative of the mom-and-pop store. As a favored group,considered legally to be an individual, corporations may be treated better than other individuals. If the folks who run corporations are worried about their shareholders, they might consider cutting back on their own inflated compensation. Ha. There certainly is a point at which taxes are too high--my Canadian accountant put that point at 50%. She said that at that level and above people start doing some creative and often self-defeating things just because they are mad. Noone has mentioned anything near that level.

[Fec]

My Wife can take a pretty good pic, but my Mom can't blog nearly that well.

[Fred Gregory]

Ed,

The Brookings Institute has been described as liberal by the NY Times, LA Times and the Washington Post. Time Magazine called Brookings "the nations pre-eminent liberal think tank". I don't think the WSJ has a monopoly on wisdom any more than you worship at the NY Times altar. Fair enough ? You should link Heritage and AEI more often. Just a suggestion.

I think by any reasonable standard I have been respectful on this thread. If, however, attacking the message is attacking the messenger is personal invective I guess I am guilty.

[Spag]

Where in the WSJ article or the underlying analysis by TPC are the McCain tax cuts for the rich?

For further clarification, let's use the following definitions:

TAX CUT: Reducing a tax rate from it's current level.

RICH: ?

[Jim Rosenberg]

How about national percentile in terms of household income, Sam. You ask a lot of questions. Answer this one: at what point using that metric would you quibble with the label "rich?" Top 5%? Top 10%? Top 25%? Please try not to use the word "liberal" in your answer.

[Ed Cone]

From the WSJ article: "Under Sen. McCain...The biggest benefit would flow to those in the top 0.1% -- those with incomes above $2.8 million -- who would see their after-tax income increase by 4.4%." Chart.

[Ged Maheux]

For Sam and anyone else having trouble with locating McCain's tax breaks for the rich and what they will add up to, CNN did a handy info-graphic piece that explains it pretty well.

And yes Sam, people who make over $112-$161K a year in this country are considered "rich".

[Ed Cone]

I don't think everyone would agree that people making $112K are rich (I wouldn't), but I think most would agree that people making over $2.8 million a year are rich -- and that's the group that gets the biggest break under the McCain plan.

Rich is a word people define for themselves. You can take all kinds of forks in the road -- if you have your health, you're rich; compared to most of the world, you're rich; if you could afford to live your current lifestyle without working, you're rich, etc.

The McCain plan gives its biggest benefit to people that almost everyone would define as rich.

[Spag]

I don't think Obama would wait to $112K to define rich. I think "rich" probably starts much lower in his book.

Needless to say, you can show me all the charts you want to, but where is McCain's tax cut? I haven't heard him mention cutting anyone's income taxes or the capital gains tax, so where is the tax CUT?

To the best of my knowledge, he isn't changing the current rates for either of those taxes.

[Spag]

Jim, maybe we shouldn't use the term "rich" because it is subjective. I will say that treating someone who makes $200,000 per year in the same category as someone who makes $2,000,000 per year for purposes of definition is out of whack.

So now will you answer my question as to where John McCain's tax cuts for the rich are?

[Dave Dobson]

I'm never sure what answer you're looking for to your rhetorical questions, Sam, but Kevin Drum has posted a copy of an image from the report with the details graphed rather succinctly.

[Jim Rosenberg]

I never said anything about John McCain's "tax cuts for the rich," so I won't answer. Moreover, only someone infatuated with argument for argument's sake would intentionally look through such an arbitrarily myopic lens before reaching the larger issue of the relative impact of each candidate's comprehensive tax policy. With the alternative minimum tax, exemptions, corporate taxation, estate, and a myriad of other levers in play it is silly to segregate a few variables and stare at them.

[Roger Greene]

I'm not going to complain about tax cuts for the $2.8 mil earners lest I apply for their club and get turned down for complaining.

[Spag]

No Jim, I'm just trying to get some Democrat to actually prove that McCain has a tax cut for the rich like they claim. Otherwise, they are just lying. If you want to call trying to cut through B.S. to get to the truth "argument for the sake of argument" then that says more about you than me.

All the graphs and charts in the world still don't answer the question of where John McCain has proposed a tax CUT for wealthy people or some NEW tax policy that favors the "rich" over the poor. This is simple sophistry at its finest, declaring maintaining the status quo as a tax "cut" or a "new" policy. It works fine on ignorant people who buy into the "tax cut for the rich" class warfare theme, but it is a flat out lie. Pressed to define "tax CUT" and "rich", they can't do it.

The proper terminology is that Obama is proposing a tax INCREASE, because that is an actual change from the status quo. The proper comparison is between the status quo and Obama's plan. It is one thing to say that Obama's plan increases taxes on upper incomes while decreasing them for the poor, while McCain maintains the status quo when it comes to income tax rates. But that isn't what Ed's article says- it claims that McCain actually gives a tax "cut" to the "richest" Americans. That is a lie and anyone who continues to spread that theme is a liar. Whether you want to be a liar or not is up to you.

[scharrison]

From his campaign website:

John McCain has also long sought permanent and immediate reform of the estate tax, and supports raising the exemption from taxation on estates up to $10 million while cutting the tax rate to 15 percent.

[Ed Cone]

The Wall Street Journal article is accurate in saying that McCain wants to cut the taxes of the richest Americans.

The status quo is for the Bush tax cuts to sunset after 2010.

McCain wants to reenact the cuts, thus lowering the taxes of the wealthiest Americans from the levels where they would be without his plan going into effect. The largest gains would go to people making $2.8 million a year or more.

[Percy Walker]

I prefer the phrase "overpayment relief for the most generous taxpayers" over "tax cuts for the rich." At the same time, I certainly don't think it is a "lie" to say that McCain is proposing more generous "tax cuts" for the richest Americans. The report in question here speaks in relative terms based upon annual cash income. There is no category called "rich."

In determining whether something is a tax cut (or hike), you have to focus on after-tax income, not just statutory rates for ordinary and capital gains income. Corporate and estate tax rates have to be taken into account, as do all manner of deductions, credits, exemptions and other ways of reducing or increasing income subject to taxation or income actually paid as taxes. The report does this.

The report also uses two baselines in determining the amount of a cut or hike: current law (which has the individual income and capital gains rates reverting to 2000 levels in 2011) and current policy (treating the current rates as permanently extended).

According to the report, under McCain's plan, in 2012, the percentage increase in after-tax income for the richest 0.1% (measured by annual cash income and using the current policy baseline) is 3%, while the percentage increases for the five quintiles generally (from poorest to richest as measured by annual cash income) are 0.2, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 and 1.2.

Using the current law baseline, the numbers are obviously much more dramatic, with richest 0.1% experiencing a 11.6% increase and the quintiles generally experiencing 0.9, 2.8, 3.1, 4.1 and 6.4 increases, respectively.

[Spag]

"The status quo is for the Bush tax cuts to sunset after 2010. McCain wants to reenact the cuts, thus lowering the taxes of the wealthiest Americans from the levels where they would be without his plan going into effect. The largest gains would go to people making $2.8 million a year or more."

Yeah, Ed, I already knew that. But the idea that maintaining the status quo which is what reenacting the current tax rates would do, is a new "tax cut" is pure sophistry.

Using that logic, then Barack Obama is also cutting taxes on the "rich" because he isn't going back and raising them to the 70% rate that they were at in 1981 before Reagan's tax cut. The whole McCain "tax cut for the rich" operates under an assumption that there is some rate that they should be at right now but aren't. That rate of course isn't identifiable. Clinton raised them, Bush cut them. Your whole premise requires people to believe that the "normal" rate should be what Clinton set them at. But that is a subjective call, and I could just as easily say that the normal rate was the Reagan/Bush rate and Clinton's hike was the aberration.

John McCain is not cutting any taxes for the rich. He is maintaining the status quo which means the "rich" (whoever they are) will continue to pay the SAME rate in 2010 as they do now. "Same" does not mean "less" unless you are trying to hoodwink people.

The sunset provision is a red herring because nearly all legislation has a sunset provision and the tax code could have changed at any time since 2000. Having a sunset to 2000 levels doesn't establish that the 2000 level is the "correct" level and everything else is a "cut". If that is the standard, then all tax policy since Reagan is a "tax cut for the rich" because 70% is the "normal" and "correct" rate for the "rich".

"Using the current law baseline, the numbers are obviously much more dramatic, with richest 0.1% experiencing a 11.6% increase..."

Increase over what, Percy?

Show me where John McCain has proposed a "tax cut" for the "rich" or "relief" or whatever you want to call it by keeping the status quo intact. See previous paragraph on who sets the baseline and what is "normal".

[Percy Walker]

You're right, Spag, there has to be a proper baseline. Recognizing this, the report in question -- should you ever choose to read it -- measures tax hikes and cuts from two different tax baselines: one baseline assumes that the tax cuts enacted during the Bush presidency that are currently scheduled to expire during the Obama or McCain presidency are made permanent prior to the Obama or McCain presidency. This baseline doesn't treat making the prior Bush tax cuts permanent as tax cuts themselves and, thus, isn't vulnerable to the complaint you are making.

The other baseline assumes current law will be followed and that the prior Bush cuts expire at the end of 2010. This baseline is vulnerable to the complaint you are making, but given that its supposed drawbacks are made so obvious in the WSJ link above, I wonder why you are making such a big deal about it.

I gave the variations from the two baselines that would be cause by the McCain plan in 2012 in my previous post. People can decide for themselves which is the proper baseline, but the bottom line under either baseline is this: the richer you are the greater your tax cuts under the McCain plan.

I support many of McCain's tax proposals, and am not, as a general matter opposed to tax cuts for the rich. I am opposed, however, to people going on and on in comment threads in order to make some petty partisan point, particularly when, as here, they are so obviously wrong.

[Spag]

"the richer you are the greater your tax cuts under the McCain plan."

Percy, where is the "cut"?

McCain is "cutting" the tax rates from what down to what? The logic seems to be that if McCain doesn't increase taxes, he is "cutting" them. That's just ignorant.

As far as partisanship, where have I injected any partisanship into the still unanswered question "where is the cut?" I haven't even brought up the fact that the study cited is from a left wing think tank. If you think this is the last study that will be done and quoted by the WSJ, I'll be sure to be around to remind you otherwise in the future.

This study declared that the McCain plan was "regressive" while Obama's was "progressive". Explain to me how tax rates of 10, 15, 25, 33, and 35 (the current policy) are "regressive". It certainly seems to me that the more you earn, the higher your rate is. Where does McCain change that? Where is the "regression"?

The whole assumption for your/their argument must be predicated on the tax rates simply not being high enough to your/their liking. But calling them "regressive" is just another damn lie to be sold to fools.

[Percy Walker]

Spag, the report has its problems, and I'm happy to discuss those, but the problems don't include the one you keep going on about. McCain, of course, isn't proposing a cut in STATUTORY rates for ordinary and capital gains income from where they stand today. Everybody understands that. He is, however, proposing a reduction in the corporate tax rate, an increase in the dependent deduction and the expensing of items that would normally have to be amortized over a multi-year period. He is also proposing a lower estate tax rate and higher exemption amount than are in effect today or would be in effect in 2009, 2011 and 2012. According to the report, these items, netted to take into account other changes, result, generally speaking, in a higher percentage of after tax income and lower ACTUAL federal tax rate the richer you are. Those are the tax cuts identified in the report that are not dependent on treating extension of the Bush tax cuts as tax cuts themselves, and they result in a cut in the ACTUAL federal tax rate from 30.4% (today) to 28.3% (2012) for the richest 0.1% (as measured by annual cash income).

On the progressivity/regressivity issue, the distribution of the benefits of the McCain plan are regressive and distribution of the benefits of the Obama plan are progressive. Nobody is saying that the statutory tax rates of the McCain plan are themselves regressive.

You really need to read the report, Spag, and stop debating arguments that nobody is making.

[Dave Dobson]

Can I just say that it's complete bullshit to suggest at the same time that

(a) that the tax cuts should be treated as essentially permanent, even though they were written to sunset

(b) the tax cuts are not budget-busting, because they sunset

The only reason the Republican-controlled legislature and Republican president included the sunset clauses was to make the long-term costs (costs over 25-50 years) look smaller. If they hadn't put the sunset in, those long-term costs would have absolutely dwarfed any problems we might have with long-term Social Security funding.

In my book, if the tax cuts are set to expire, and McCain needs to sign a new law to continue them, he's cutting taxes, particularly since the expiration was just political spin anyway. But whatever. Either way, it was horrible policy conducted in a shady manner then, and it will be if McCain continues it.

[Spag]

Corporate tax rate cut = not a tax cut for the "rich". Corporations aren't individuals and pass through income is paid at the individual, not corporate rate.

Estate tax cut = everyone pays estate tax, so a cut there isn't simply a "tax cut for the rich"

The "regressive" vs. "progressive" issue is antics with semantics. Lower incomes don't pay more under McCain than they are paying now and anyway you slice it, the "rich" still pay a higher percentage. The only way around that is to impose a tax on the "rich" that essentially confiscates all of their wealth so they have no more money than the "poor". The "rich" are always going to have more after tax income.

In order for McCain to have a truly regressive tax, he would have to raise taxes on lower incomes, which he is not doing. A truly regressive tax is a common rate that is applied to everyone that effects lower incomes more than higher incomes because of simple math. A tax rate of 8% on everyone is obviously going to have more severe consequences on the standard of living of a person making $30,000 per year than a person making $300,000 per year. That is why we have progressive tax rates. McCain isn't changing that.

Dave, the only B.S. is the predictable class warfare spin about "tax cuts for the rich" that is going on here when McCain has proposed no such thing. Further, you are assuming some normative baseline for what the "rich" should pay (indexed to Bill Clinton's tax rates as if they are the standard) as opposed to what they are.

There is no such thing as a "permanent" tax cut because Congress can always change them at any time.

I assume your concern over budget busting is sincere, so I will bookmark that thought when we tally up the cost of Obama's agenda to see if you still have that concern. Our biggest problem isn't that tax rates are too low, but that spending is too high. Let's bring the troops home as soon as possible, not only from Iraq but from the rest of the world as well. That will save billions. Let's cut entitlements and waste. Let's make sure free trade is fair trade so we can keep more jobs in America so more Americans are contributing to the tax base. Let's return more authority to the states so they can more efficiently manage things that the federal government is trying to do on a national level very inefficiently and with poor results. We have become a centralized government empire, and it's time to put an end to that. Unfortunately, neither candidate looks to change that and each will probably make it worse in their own way.

[Ed Cone]

"everyone pays estate tax."

Wrong.

Most people pay no estate tax.

Currently, there is no tax on estates under $2 million. Next year, that goes up to $3.5 million, and in 2010 the tax goes away altogether, so that a billion dollar fortune could pass through untaxed.

The tax is reimposed in 2011, unless (like the rest of the Bush tax cuts) Congress votes to reinstate the cuts.

There is a real and obvious difference between a tax plan with a defined life and sunset date, like the Bush plan, and the understanding that Congress can always change the rules.

DD is accurate in his explanation for the reasons behind the sunset provision for these cuts.

That provision is why McCain would have to get them passed again -- that is, to cut taxes from the rate at which they would otherwise be set, and to do so in a way that most benefits the people who just about anyone would define as "rich."

I'm very sincere in my concern about the budget (and its impact on the dollar). That's one reason I've found Bush's economic policies so distressing, and I'm not eager to see him followed by McCain, who (a)admits he doesn't know that much about economics and (b) wants to follow the Bush model anyway.

[Spag]

The estate tax rate doesn't change, Ed. If anything, it is a tax that only the "rich" would pay. How is that regressive?

There is no tax rate "at which they would otherwise be set". That is simply a sunset provision. There is no standard for what is "normal". Avoiding an increase is not a cut except by sophistry. The idea that the rich will be paying less under McCain than they are paying now in income taxes is a lie being spread to fuel class warfare in an election year.

If I say I am going to increase your pay from $50,000 now to $60,000 in 2010, but then change my mind and keep you at $50,000, are you making less money now? Has your pay been cut? It hasn't been increased, but it wasn't cut either.

The whole scam is that under McCain, "rich" people will suddenly start paying less income tax. That is a lie.

Russert is gone for less than 24 hours and suddenly people think they can get away with hoodwinking the public again.

[Ed Cone]

Contrary to your prior statement, not everyone pays the estate tax.

Only large estates are taxed.

McCain would eliminate the tax on estates under $5 million and lower to 15% the rate on estates of more than $5 million.

Thus the McCain plan would reduce (or eliminate) taxes on large estates.

For many of the families involved, this could accurately be described as a tax break for the rich.

Re: the sunset provision. "'There is no tax rate 'at which they would otherwise be set'".

This, too, is simply incorrect.

The sunset provision means that taxes would revert to the levels at which they were set before the tax bill passed.

It's not a matter of "natural" rates, it's a matter of the rates at which taxes will be set with and without the McCain plan.

[Dave Dobson]

Sam, you would give McClellan and Ari Fleischer a run for their money. The estate tax is progressive. Nobody pays it but the upper half percent of estates. Getting rid of it is a regressive action, or at least anti-progressive, and helps only the richest fraction of a percent of the population.

How about you try to defend the actual Bush/McCain tax policy, which sucks, instead of all this pedantic crap about whether something's an increase or a maintenance of a decrease?

And trying to "win" an argument by putting words in a respected recently dead guy's mouth is pretty despicable, however you cut it.

[Billy The Blogging Poet]

Spag,
First this: "John McCain has also long sought permanent and immediate reform of the estate tax, and supports raising the exemption from taxation on estates up to $10 million while cutting the tax rate to 15 percent."

And why is there no Google cache of McCain's website?

[Billy The Blogging Poet]

CORRECTION: There IS a Google cache of McCain's website on Google.com but not on my application. My bad.

[Ed Cone]

Billy, thnx for the correction on the amount McCain would exempt from estate taxes.

The report linked above says $5 million, but the McCain website does indeed say $10 million (with the reduction in rates to 15% on estates over $10 million).

[Spag]

Ed, Dave, if only rich people pay the estate tax, then repealing it cannot me regressive because it has no impact on the taxes that "not rich" people pay. I don't know who taught you the meaning of regressive taxes, but you are misapplying the term. Further, only a Democrat could couch the elimination of a tax for ALL estates UNDER $5 million as a "tax cut for the rich".

Dave, how about you show me McCain's tax cut instead of trying to shift the issue to defending Bush's tax cut? Tell me, where is the cut (meaning "less than they are paying today") and who are the "rich"?

Or are you now forced to admit that you are only referring to an estate tax cut (which MOST people don't pay anyhow so there is no zero sum effect) despite all the inflammatory, misleading and tiring mantra about "tax cuts for the rich"?

Question: If John Kerry was elected in 2004 instead of Bush, do you think Bush's tax policy would remain in effect until 2010 or would the Democrats and Kerry have changed it well before it sunsetted?

The sunsetting is a red herring, only useful to perpetuate the predictable Democrat lie about tax cuts for the rich (notice how they never say who the "rich" are).

Using the logic in play here, Obama is also proposing a tax cut for the rich because he refuses to return tax rates to what they were before Ronald Reagan became President. Recall then that Reagan's tax cuts were also called "tax cuts for the rich" when he cut them from 70% down into the 30's. Recall also that Bill Clinton only raised the highest tax bracket a little less than 4%, well below the 70% before Reagan, so Clinton to must have been "cutting taxes for the rich" by not defaulting back to a previous tax rate.

Smoke and mirrors for the uninformed, that's all your mantra is.

[Dave Dobson]

Sam, you've simultaneously argued that the estate tax affects everybody and now that it affects nearly nobody. You've called an increase a decrease, you've cried out for somebody to show you a cut and denied it when they did. You've followed so many lines of crap in this discussion it's hard to keep up with them.

I showed you a simple graph of the analysis of the two tax plans. Under McCain's plan, the Bush tax cuts that heavily favored the wealthiest Americans will be continued and made even more extreme in other ways, including the estate tax repeal.

I am absolutely uninterested in whether you consider these technically to be cuts or not, or whether you consider this Bush policy or McCain policy, or McCain continuing Bush policy. Those are semantic, cynical, hair-splitting sound-bite politics. What Bush and congressional Republicans started, and what McCain intends to continue, has created a society with a more lopsided division of wealth than we've seen since before the Great Depression, has guaranteed that all of the meager economic growth we've had over the last seven years has gone to the wealthy, while those below the 95th percentile have seen a shrinkage in their incomes in real dollars. That's bad, bad regressive policy - it has benefited a tiny wealthy fraction with the least need for aid at the expense of the bulk of society.

Obama intends to reverse this regressive shift in tax policy. That's a good idea. Obama proposes to reinstate a rational estate tax. That's also a good idea, as many thinkers, rich and poor, Republican and Democrat, have supported from the beginnings of our country.

[Spag]

Dave it effects everybody in the sense that everyone who pays it pays the same rate. How it is regressive to "not rich" people who don't pay ANY of it is pure wizardry I guess. People who don't pay taxes aren't hurt by the rates of those who do. If it were truly regressive then it would apply to all estates of $0 or more. But as it stands, it is rather progressive in the sense that it only kicks in at high income levels. So your logic is that a tax that for the most part is only paid by "rich" people is unfair to "poor" people who don't have to pay it. Huh?

Showing me graphs isn't showing me where John McCain said he would CUT taxes on the RICH.

"Those are semantic, cynical, hair-splitting sound-bite politics." Exactly, only it is coming from your side using the faulty logic that failing to INCREASE taxes is somehow a tax CUT.

"What Bush and congressional Republicans started, and what McCain intends to continue, has created a society with a more lopsided division of wealth than we've seen since before the Great Depression...."

So what you are claiming is that the 4% difference in the top bracket now as opposed to what it was under Bill Clinton is responsible for all these ills? Why weren't these ills solved under the 70% tax bracket before Reagan came along? I mean if we can solve our problems simply by increasing taxes from 35% (current top bracket) to 39% (Clinton top bracket) shouldn't we have a Utopia at 70%? And using your logic, don't Clinton and Obama both support tax cuts for the rich for not increasing taxes back to the pre-Reagan/Bush/Evil Republican levels?

Sorry, but it is smoke and mirrors. Tell me, Dave, how much revenue are we supposed to raise with that 4% increase? Tell me how is it that tax brackets that are PROGRESSIVELY higher the more you earn are actually REGRESSIVE? Is Obama proposing a two bracket system where "rich" people pay taxes and everyone else doesn't? Otherwise, any system where rates increase with wealth is progressive. Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 never changed that. Clinton didn't and Obama won't either.

You really need to go back to the books and research what a regressive tax is, and while you are at it, tell me who the "rich" are and what the top tax bracket for them should be in your ideal world.

[Dave Dobson]

If we're borrowing money to fund government, that debt is incurred by all taxpayers and paid by all taxpayers. Debt service is over 10% of the total budget and increasing rapidly. Killing the estate tax affects every single taxpayer by increasing our debt and thus our debt service payments.

The rest of your post is too ridiculous and absurd to merit comment - you misrepresent my arguments and ascribe positions and statements to me that I have not made, and take those manufactured arguments to illogical extremes. Whatever.

[scharrison]

Ed, I posted that Estate Tax info a few days ago. Please tell me I'm not the only one who can see my posts?