October 9, 2008

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

I pulled this from RCP....the reality
*********************************************************
During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.

The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.

American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy.

Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity, continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly precarious position.

Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire.

Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Those Americans on Main Street who own mutual funds, own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.

Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that we bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21.

Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.

Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden.

6 comments:

Dan said...

This was... MIND... NUMBINGLY... LAME!

And amazingly, the stupidity density increased as the post went on. It was interesting, however, that both the beginning and ending relate to income distribution. The very rich, the top percentile of incomes pay a high percentage of income taxes because they collect a disproportionate share of income. In 2000 the very rich paid 37.4% of income taxes (not less than 1/3), while in 2005 (the latest year available from the IRS) the top percentile paid 39.4% of income taxes. Yes this is an increase, but much less dramatic than the RNC drivel. But between 2000 and 2005, tax rates were decreased. Mathematically, the only way for the very rich to pay a larger percentage of income taxes after lowering the tax rate is if the top percentile’s proportion of income increases: aka, income redistribution.

A few other corrections:
*Obama’s plan is to cut, not raise taxes
*Dividend and capital gain taxes do not affect IRAs, 401(k)s, 503(c)s, etc - the method by which most American’s own stocks
*Taxes on business are shared between the business and the customer, the proportion depends on the elasticity of demand (sorry for getting wonkish) - whoever wrote this post obviously failed their Econ classes.

Deanna Shaw said...

Nice.

a) The post clearly speaks to Obama’s “tax cutting” plan so your statement isn’t a correction, just a restatement – and – pointless. You must be bored.

b) Long-term capital gains (gains on assets held for more than 1 year): the benefit of an IRA (excluding ROTH at the moment) and other tax-deferred plans over traditional savings and stock investments is two-fold, the compounding factor and tax-free dividends (depending on income level and/or type of dividend and account holding) and tax-free capital gains. On a 25 or 30+year investment, taxes on either reduces the overall distribution. In case you aren’t aware, avoiding taxes on dividends and capital gains is a principal reason why so many have money in tax-deferred or tax-exempt plans. For people in the lowest tax bracket, the current tax on dividends is 0% - which will change with Obama’s plan.

c) True, much of what is in this post is dependent on what tax bracket you’re in, the type of assets you hold, the type of account holding your assets and for how long. The point here is in speaking to “main stream” middle class (lower tax-brackets) which will see the greater increases (for taxable dividends, etc) versus those in the highest tax brackets who are already at the maximum, unless the maximums are changed but I haven't read those details).

d) The point of the article is that Obama’s “tax cutting” plan is misleading – as you have so poignantly showed us. It’s a tax-cut in one place (and nonsensically structured in my view), and a tax increase in other places. Re-read the article if you’re not clear on this point. Hence, it is not a total tax-cutting plan unless you’re an idiot and/or completely ignorant; and there are impacts.

Deanna Shaw said...

Correction to my previous post: Obama's plan would not eliminate tax exemptions from dividends on lower incomes.

Dan said...

oy vey!

a) Blackwell’s post, like McCain over the course of any given week, actually takes several positions, so mine was a clarification not a correction, but I stand corrected. :-)

b) Your first part is an accurate description of the tax benefits of tax-deferred savings plans (although the tax advantages also apply to Roth IRAs, so don’t neglect them in your retirement planning). It is also pointless, at least with regards to the post and my reply. Blackwell claimed that Obama’s tax increase on dividends and capital gains would hurt people’s IRAs and 401(k)s. My response was that dividends and capital gains taxes, of any kind, do not affect these savings plans. So yes, I was aware of the tax benefits. Your later claim that Obama’s plan would change the dividend rate for people in the lowest tax brackets, is incorrect, however. Both the dividend rate and capital gain rates are unchanged for families with under $250k in income (see here and here).

c) There is so much wrong with your point “c” that it gives me a headache! Your claim that, “... middle class (lower tax-brackets) ... will see the greater increases (for taxable dividends, etc) versus those in the highest tax brackets who are already at the maximum...,” is completely backwards; please refer to the links above.

d) You have most of the words, but you’ve mixed up the order. The point of Blackwell’s post was to be misleading about the Obama proposal. Perhaps it is you who should re-read the post!

Anonymous said...

Dan, Obama's plan is to raise the income tax, dividend and capital gains tax on those making $250m or more. When all those people combined have to bear the burden the total tax shares paid out, it's fair to say that half of his entire tax plan involves raising taxes. Anyone making $250m or more will be able to show you in about 3-6 months.

Also, the capital gains on 401ks and IRAs are actually paid out as income, not capital gains, so the capital gains tax would not impact these savings. I'm not sure about pensions, if they are tied to employee stock buys, they might be impacted by increased dividend taxes.

Deanna Shaw said...

re: 401k taxed as income. ..

Ahem, yes you're right. That's kind of why I dropped this convo. I realized this when I started thinking about my own 401k distribution - it was taxed as income.

duh. So, SOR-RY.