Here we go again. Just as with 2001-2003 coverage of Bush's tax cuts which gave the greatest percent cut to those in the lowest income tax bracket (going from 15 down to 10 percent, a 33 percent reduction), ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday chose to undermine the fairness of John McCain's proposed tax plan (and illustrate the media hostility sure to greet McCain whenever he takes a conservative position) by citing estimated dollar cuts by income level, as if it's unfair for someone earning more to get a larger dollar amount tax cut than someone making less.
Citing the Tax Policy Center, a project of two left of center organizations -- the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution -- Stephanopoulos reminded This Week guest Tim Pawlenty, the Republican Governor of Minnesota, how “your trademark has been that the Republican Party has to be the party of Sam's Club, not just the country club.” Stephanopoulos, who failed to hit his other guest, Democratic Congressman Rahm Emmanuel with any numbers critical of Obama's tax plan, pounced on Pawlenty:
The Tax Policy Institute [actually, Center] has crunched the numbers on John McCain's tax plan. I want to put some of them up there right now. It shows that if you're making under $60,000 a year about, the bottom 60 percent will get about $150. The top one percent of people, making about $600,000 a year, get $45,000. The top 0.1 percent -- that's approaching $3 million a year -- get almost $270,000. How do you sell that as a plan that targets Sam's Club more than the country club?
Demonstrating the liberal appeal of the Tax Policy Center's analysis based on dollars instead of percent cuts, as a guest on Fox News Sunday Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell cited the same Tax Policy Center report as did Stephanopoulos.
Picking up on the Tax Policy Center's raw numbers, the right of center Tax Foundation crunched them and discovered a trend the media rarely discuss:
Obama's plan would greatly accelerate the decades-long trend toward a federal government that depends for tax revenue almost exclusively on a few high-income people.This contrasts starkly with the McCain plan, according to [Tax Foundation President Scott] Hodge, which would give every taxpayer a cut and leave the current tax burden distribution approximately where it is.
An excerpt from the Tax Foundation's June 26 press release:
"Under the Obama plan for 2009," explains Hodge, "more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers."As a result, the top 1 percent of households would pay more federal taxes of all kinds than the bottom 80 percent of households. That lopsided distribution under Obama does include payroll taxes and other federal taxes, but it excludes the new payroll tax hike that Obama plans to levy on people making more than $250,000 because details about that plan are currently unclear.
"In other words," says Hodge, "it is at this point a cautious estimate to say that in 2009, under Obama's plan, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined."
To put the Obama plan in historical context, Hodge cites various statistics that show the U.S. tax system evolving into one where a majority of Americans pay little or nothing:
* Between 1999 and 2006, the number of tax filers who had no income tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions grew from 30 million to nearly 44 million.
* Looking at all federal taxes combined, the CBO says that between 1990 and 2005, the tax share of the bottom 80 percent of households dropped from 42 percent of the total to 31 percent. Meanwhile, the tax share of the top 1 percent of households rose from 16 percent to 28 percent.
* In 2004, the nation's tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households.
The Tax Foundation's full report: “Hard Numbers on Obama's Redistribution Plan.”
The full question from Stephanopoulos on the June 29 This Week, as provided by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth who also got the screen shots for me:
I do want to turn to taxes right now. And, Governor Pawlenty, your trademark has been that the Republican Party has to be the party of Sam's Club, not just the country club. And the Tax Policy Institute has crunched the numbers on John McCain's tax plan. I want to put some of them up there right now. It shows that if you're making under $60,000 a year about, the bottom 60 percent will get about $150. The top one percent of people, making about $600,000 a year, get $45,000. The top 0.1 percent -- that's approaching $3 million a year -- get almost $270,000. How do you sell that as a plan that targets Sam's Club more than the country club?
Summary page for the Tax Policy Center's report released on June 24: “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans.” PDF of the full report.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Democrats realize that
June 30, 2008 - 10:06 ET by mooreusmcDemocrats realize that without this lie they have little to offer the general public. Unfortunately it works because most Americans, apparently, lack the perspective to realize that if you are paying $3+ million in taxes that a tax break will return MORE than if you are not paying ANYTHING in taxes. $150 dollars back for paying nothing seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Fascist math
June 30, 2008 - 11:35 ET by Joe C.Any analysis should only include tax payers, not everyone with an income. If someone pays $10 in taxes and gets $150 back, that's a 1400% return. If someone pays $1 million and gets $250K back that's only 25%. Guess who got screwed, but guess who is more pissed off.
This is the entire leftists strategy in a nutshell: keep 50.1% of voters dependent and ignorant so that they can't realize the truth, but just hungry enough that they can get to the polls every 2 years for more slop.
Drinking beer
June 30, 2008 - 19:14 ET by ThisnThatSo, tell them in terms they might understand, like beer drinking.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Liberal Math
June 30, 2008 - 10:06 ET by BlondeI can' take it any more. Any time a liberal opens his/her mouth about tax policy and/or the math of anything whatsoever, I'm turning my brain off. It hurts.
These idealogues would call an apple an orange if they thought it would taste better.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Grade school math
June 30, 2008 - 10:15 ET by KC MulvilleStephanopoulos is exploiting the confusion between inequality and unfairness, and between a hard sum and a percentage. If you start out with the idea that a poverty-level worker receives less than a billionaire, and then wondering how anyone could honestly "sell" that discrepancy, you've rhetorically planted the idea that this is inherently wrong.
Of course, that always sounds unequal when you're discussing how much more billionaires receive. As you showed, when you turn it around to compare how much more billionaires pay, the discrepancies favor the opponents. The only disqualifier is that society offers billionaires more tax breaks, but that's only in exchange for the billionaires making investments that poverty-level workers can't make.
"hard sum vs. percentage"
June 30, 2008 - 15:04 ET by trak65Exactly, KC. Just like ExxonMobile's "windfall" profits or the "costly" Iraq war. XOM's after-tax profits are consistently around 10% of revenues (17% pre-tax--wonder where that other 7% went). Iraq outlays are well under 1% of GDP, compared to 20% to 30% of GDP WWII. But, throwing around numbers like "$40 billion" and "$100 billion" with no context seems to resonate with the incurious majority of the public. Context, context, context...tell your friends.
Only the Rich Pay
June 30, 2008 - 10:22 ET by dvdaughtryAccording to the info on RushLimbaugh.com, a quarter of the population pays 86% of the tax revenue. The top half pay 97%!
The poor do not get tax breaks becuase they pay no tax. It's that simple, and intentionally dishonest, to present the figures in the manner they are presented by Stephy.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Of course Obama's plan will
June 30, 2008 - 10:39 ET by bassndudeOf course Obama's plan will cost all of us, in the long run. Bad business, all around.
What I would like to see is some numbers on what the tax revenue would be if everyone who earns income, paid a flat 10% tax rate. From teenagers at McDonalds to Bill Gates and those in his income bracket. Then go from there.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
If everyone paid 10%....
June 30, 2008 - 21:52 ET by trak65For 2005, total salaries were $5.1 trillion and total income was $7.4 trillion, so a 10% flat rate would likely generate $510 billion. Actual income tax collections are listed as $935 billion, so the revenue neutral flat rate would have to be around 18% if you use static scoring methods.
Numbers from http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html
Or the government can cut
June 30, 2008 - 22:06 ET by Conservative VoiceOr the government can cut its budget across the board 50% and set the tax to a flat 10%. The federal government is over bloated, it could easily cut 50%.
Time to post the "Dinner Lesson" link
June 30, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Hunter12Has a Democratic economist ever refuted the logic in this lesson?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Thanks for the link, Hunter.
June 30, 2008 - 11:39 ET by MassConservThanks for the link, Hunter. I was just thinking about that object lesson this morning (remembering someone had posted it a few months ago) and wondering where I might find it.
The rich didn't get that way
June 30, 2008 - 11:52 ET by Hunter12The rich didn't get that way by being stupid. They'll take their ball and go home. Pretty soon the Dims will be looking at ways to tax 401Ks and Social Security payments at a higher rate. When the government starts looking there, a lot more people are going to discover, "Hey I'm rich!" Or at least they were considered such for a day or two.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
dinner
June 30, 2008 - 12:12 ET by pagg30Spot on.
and they still won't get it.
Presidential Temperament
June 30, 2008 - 10:58 ET by akhajawallDear American Voters, reporters, media. professionals, political parties, and presidential Nominees,
Subject: Presidential Temperament
Please talk about and "Compare And Contrast" the " Presidential Temperament" of our Presidential presumptive nominees. I will also request and plead to the nominees themselves [ Hon. Senator McCain and Obama ].
Our nation has been applying this yard and stick tor the appointments and confirmation process of our Supreme Court Justices nominees.
Our Greatgrand Nation Foundations are as under:
Family, friends, fellows, faith, funds, fun, with fairness & freedom And without fear, favor, and failure.
It will be disgrace and shameful if the nominees and media will not look into this critical and crucial aspect under current challenging times and circumstances within our country and all around the Globe.
America wake up and the discuss the " Presidential Temperament" of our presumptive presidential nominee's [ Hon. Senator McCain and Obama].
Yours sincerely,
COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret].
Disabled American Veteran
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas, Nevada.
This tax the rich idea is so stupid
June 30, 2008 - 11:00 ET by szampThese guys keep trying to convince us that the rich should pay more taxes but the idea looks so stupid to me. That's why we use percentages on taxes and not absolute values. The rich already pay more taxes.
I'm not rich but I dream of being rich one day. The last thing I want is for the government to make it harder for me to realize my dreams.
If you tax the rich progressively, you prevent people from ascending in life. The rich can become poor but the poor have a hard time becoming rich. How can somebody think that this is fair?
What amazes me is that the poor are the ones that fall for this trick. They are the one locking themselves on poverty.
Szamp, Don't worry. With
June 30, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Hunter12Szamp, Don't worry. With this attitude from the libs, you will probably have the opportunity to be considered rich someday. We'll all move into that bracket of the richest people in the country when the current crop of the wealthy decide to shelter their money from the vultures who must take it to buy the votes from the poor that they need to stay in power.
I love to see Bono on TV talking about how governments should fight poverty and such around the world. I wonder how much more Ireland could do if they had the ability to tax U2's assets?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
What Goes Around Comes Around
June 30, 2008 - 11:48 ET by V the KJohn McCain was making precisely the same attack on the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
"John McCain was making precisely the same attack..."
June 30, 2008 - 12:21 ET by Joe C."John McCain was making precisely the same attack on the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003."
And he was proven wrong just like the rest of the economically ignorant Democrats and Media.
At Least They're Being Honest
June 30, 2008 - 11:49 ET by rammingspeedThis is the kind of frank, open honesty we'd never have believed possible from the American left. They're counting their presidents and overwhelming house and senate majorities before they're elected. Even if they get that in '08, remember '92. They had all three then and as soon as they tried enacting their stupid ideas, there was a revolt at the ballot box in '94, and they were stopped in their tracks. Americans will not put up with redistributionism, although they may have to taste more of it before they react.
We have to trust the majority of people, and not be overwhelmed by the propaganda of the MSN and their willing accomplices in the Democrat party.
Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy
June 30, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Par for the CourseI thought this was an interesting poll:
But who are we?
June 30, 2008 - 14:00 ET by ontherightWhy should the charlatan politicians care what the "majority" of legal US citizens want?
It doesn't matter that we voted them into office (at least those of us who care enough to vote).
It doesn't matter that they (some with hidden crossed fingers) swore an oath to office.
It doesn't matter that those of us who actually pay taxes are being taxed out of existence while the power mongers yell "more, more - it's for the less-fortunate and/or the CHILDREN!"
So I ask again; who are we and why should our opinions and voices sway or drive anything the criminal DC politicians decide to do?
"We the people" have long been forgotten by the "power at all costs" politicos. Our future is etched in stone unless and until the legal citizenry of these United States is willing to get their lazy asses off the couch, turn off the TV and pay attention to the real world around them, and then, dump the tea in the harbor.
If nothing decisive is done, get used to being taxed until the very life blood is sucked dry from each and everyone of us. I hope you "non-believers" all have an exit plan...you're going to need it.
No income redistribution?
July 5, 2008 - 18:15 ET by ThisnThatThat's a pollster that'll never get another chance to ask questions!
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Everyone knows that the
June 30, 2008 - 20:02 ET by GregEEveryone knows that the bottom 60% should be getting a tax cut, per person, of $269,000 per year, not the other way around as shown in the graphic. It's only fair!