McCain, Obama & Your Money
|
|
I heard an interesting poll breakdown this morning on NPR’s Morning Edition. Their latest poll shows the presidential election in a dead heat with McCain barely leading at 227 electoral votes and Obama following at 222 (one would need 270 to win the White House). That’s not the interesting part, really. Afterall, the only poll that means anything is the one on Nov. 4. But what I thought was interesting was one of the cultural breakdowns: people who drink Starbucks coffee lean heavily toward Obama and those who frequently shop at Wal-Mart lean heavily toward McCain.
I can’t imagine those breakdowns surprise most people. But I find the break between rhetoric and reality fascinating. McCain and Palin, specifically- and Republicans in general- insist that they will lower taxes and decrease spending in contrast with Obama, Biden and Democrats, who will raise taxes and increase spending. But analyses of both presidential candidates’ tax plans clearly dispute that.
Independent groups have looked at this and say Obama’s tax plan will decrease taxes for 95% of American households. And CNN did a breakdown of how households with various annual incomes would fare under both men’s plans. Those households bringing in between $19k and $38k will get a $113 tax break under McCain’s plan. The tax break would be $892 under Obama’s plan. Households bringing in $38k to $66k would get a $319 tax break from McCain. They’d get a $1,042 break from Obama.
On the other end, if you earn between $161k and $227k, you’d get more than $4k in tax breaks from McCain but less than $3k from Obama. And, Heaven forbid you should make between $227k and $603k each year. In that case, McCain will give you nearly $8k in tax breaks. Obama would have you paying some $12k.
So it seems that the folks who would benefit most from Obama’s tax plan are voting for McCain, who wouldn’t help them nearly as much. I recognize, for some people, there are other issues that are more important than money. But with the economy being what it is today, I’m personally unwilling to take the risk.
I don’t know if I’m willing to give up my Starbucks, though, either.
on 
If nothing else, the McCain campaign has done a good job at convincing many Americans that Obama’s plan would raise their taxes. Being that taxation is really the one thing that affects everyone, getting people to believe that Obama will raise their taxes was a good play. Unfortunately, as you wrote, this isn’t the case for 95% of Americans.
Callers and knockers are making taxes a talking point because, as one recent e-mail included, “Any conversation with a potential voter that doesn’t include taxes is a vote Obama loses”.
First of all, CNN did not do the breakdown, the Urban Institute (via the Tax Policy Center) did. Additionally, the TPI did their analysis under a static model, which is, as every economist knows, seriously flawed. Last, one can tell the bias of the writers when they says, “We estimated the cost of Senator McCain’s plan….” That is completely backward. It is not the GOVERNMENT’S money, it is OUR money. Thus, the taxpayers would SAVE money under McCain’s plan.
Danae, you just summarized the main question in Thomas Franks “What’s the matter with Kansas?”. From the numbers I saw and estimated, the crossover point is somewhere just north of $100K. You make less than that, you get a bigger break under Obama. More, and McCain gets you a bigger tax break. And you’re right, in my own conversations with conservatives especially, many (especially those not politically active) think Obama will universally raise everyones taxes. The McCain campaign’s disinformation is winning this battle it would seem.
Jack, the conservative argument is to convert to a dynamic model when calculating the cost of tax cuts, to take into account the resulting economic growth. It has no relevance in this scenario, as we’re not talking about macroeconomics but micro.
Anyone who looks at Obama’s new spending proposals and compares them to his tax plans and believes both needs some serious remedial math courses.
As does anyone who looks at McCain’s huge tax cuts and meager spending cuts.
Actually, Jeremy, we ARE talking about macroeconomics. The report was talking about how much the two plans would “cost” the government (i.e., save the taxpayers — it is the PEOPLE who pay, not the government). The people either spend or invest the money. For the most part, they spend on or invest in PRODUCTIVE pursuits. Government bureaucrats produce nothing. Thus, anything spent for the maintenance of the bureaucrats and their families is wasted money.