The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email

AmSpecBlog

Getting To 95 Percent

As a follow-up to my article on the main site, I have received an email from Brian Deese, an economic policy adviser for the Obama campaign, as to the rationale behind the campaign's claim that 95 percent of Americans would receive a tax cut under his proposals. The gist of his response is that the Obama team ties its refund payments to payroll taxes. While about a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes, for the most part, they have to pay payroll taxes (there are exceptions, for instance, some state employees). Even though the plan doesn't reduce effective marginal tax rates on 95 percent, Deese said that the campaign is on safe ground arguing that it would do so based on actual dollar tax liabilities after refunds, and he cited this chart from the Tax Policy Center. Also, he noted that the McCain campaign has claimed its health care tax credit as a tax cut, too.

Here's more detail from Deese's email:

Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Credit will directly cut taxes for 95% of all workers. It is structured as an offset to the payroll tax paid by all individuals who have positive wage income under $150,000. The MWP credit offsets payroll taxes on up to the first $8,100 dollars in earned income – (which is taxed at 6.2% payroll tax on the employee side) – resulting in up to a $500 tax cut per worker and $1,000 per working couple. The campaign arrived at the estimate that 95% of workers would benefit from the MWP credit – and get a tax cut - by deriving the number of workers in the economy who have positive wage income, but earn less than $150,000 (above $150,000, the MWP phases out)....

The other issue that is important to clarify is that when the McCain campaign asserts that “32%” (or 40%) of all workers pay no income taxes, this is misleading. Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Cut directly offsets the first $500 of payroll tax that a worker pays each year. It is therefore ONLY available to workers who pay payroll taxes, and no worker receives a tax cut that exceeds their payroll tax payments. Since its inception in 2007, this was the design of the Making Work Pay Tax Cut: “This refundable income tax credit will provide direct relief to American families who face the regressive payroll tax system. It will offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of their earnings while still preserving the important principle of a dedicated revenue source for Social Security." Accordingly, the allegation that the Making Work Pay Tax Cut goes to workers who do not pay income taxes is entirely misleading – the 95% of workers that Obama claims will benefit are all workers who pay payroll taxes, and none will receive a tax cut from the MWP cut that is greater than their payroll tax liabilities.

Deese's response raises another interesting point. If Obama is serious about cutting payroll taxes, he could either reduce the current rate or, alternatively, restructure the tax so that it only kicks in after the first $8,100 of earned income. However, one of the liberal criticisms of Social Security personal accounts is that allowing workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes would threaten the system by reducing the amount of revenue available to fund current retirees. So Obama doesn't want to outright cut payroll taxes. The whole complicated  refundable tax credit formula allows him to argue that he's providing lower-income workers with payroll tax relief, while deflecting scrutiny from those who are concerned about removing money from the Social Security system.

Comments

Professor John C. Kunich| 10.18.08 @ 5:42PM

Has Obama changed his mind about letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010? Unless I missed something, he has no intention of seeking their renewal. This alone would result in a massive, multi-pronged tax INCREASE (involving full restoration of the estate tax and large hikes in capital gains and income tax rates). Some of these would hit only upper-income levels, but plenty of moderate-income folks would find themselves paying more in capital gains taxes when they cash in their investments. This is a significant point, and it needs to be made clear.

jinger| 8.20.09 @ 4:08AM

UGG This is a Australia brand, has a good reputation and the quality of the highest quality, each used in the production of pairs of Boots are the 100% genuine sheepskin, and bring you comfort every step, hold it is not afraid of the cold winter .Friends, autumn has come, winter is also not far from the pace, you do need a pair of Boots? We have here the best quality boots and the price of the cheap boots.special ugg boots have categories for Cardy Boots,
crochet boots,
Mini boots, Short boots, Tall boots,
Sandal, supply of the men boots and women boots . UGG NightfallUGG SundanceUGG Halendi SandalUGG Tasmina Friends, if you buy in our store, we can Free Shipping & Customs, 1 Week Delivery To You Door!

nike air force 1scheap Air Force 1classic Uggsdiscount Puma shoessdvdNike Af1 ShoesCheap uggsclassic UggsTimberland Boots

Leave a Comment

ADVERTISEMENT

Are you in a mob?

The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?

         

Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.

The Stupak Amendment

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

"No Guarantees"

Philip Klein

* * * *

Too Big To Succeed

Greg Scandlen

* * * *

One Step Forward, Two Races Back

George Neumayr

* * * *

Divisive Unanimity

Daniel J. Flynn

* * * *

Joe Wilson, Call Your Office

Larry Thornberry

* * * *

ACORN's Big Spender

Matthew Vadum

* * * *

The Spirit of 1989

Doug Bandow

* * * *

The Somali-Kenya Connection

George H. Wittman

* * * *

Tex Mess

William Murchison

* * * *

Feeding the Beast

Philip Klein

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT