Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

A Comparative Tax Story: Obama, McCain, and Ike

By Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality. Posted June 18, 2008.


Why this November's election may matter more to America's super-rich, in terms of the bottom-line, than any other in U.S. history.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Rachel Maddow Goes After the "Child Labor-Endorsing, Pro-Slavery Freak" Corporations

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Whistleblowers Say Oil Reserve Numbers Deliberately Inflated to Avoid Panic, Appease the US
Matthew McDermott

Food:
Quitting Meat Is a Process -- Almost Impossible to Do All at Once
Jonathan Safran Foer

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena HincapiƩ

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Why the Ft. Hood Massacre Is George Bush's Fault
Thom Hartmann

More stories by Sam Pizzigati

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If you had $1 million riding on the result of the 2008 presidential election, would you be paying some extra close attention to the race between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama? America's super-rich -- those swells who make up the nation's top 0.1 percent of income-earners -- now find themselves in that exact position.

In fact, this November's election may matter more to America's super-rich, in pure dollars and cents, than any other election in U.S. history.

In 2009, the 140,000 households in the top 0.1 percent will pay, on average, $1 million more in federal taxes if Barack Obama makes his way to the White House -- and wins congressional approval of his tax plans -- than they would if victory goes to John McCain.

Who says so? The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based research group. The Center, a joint effort between the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, last week released a new report billed as "A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans."

Put an emphasis on the "preliminary." Neither the McCain nor Obama camps, the Center notes, have spelled out their tax plans in intricate detail. But the two candidates have floated enough specifics -- in speeches, policy papers, and interviews -- to allow some meaningful comparisons.

If Senator McCain's proposals and preferences on tax policy should become law, the Center calculates, the nation's most affluent 0.1 percent -- taxpayers who this year will make at least $2.9 million in income -- will pay $269,364 less in federal taxes than they would pay if current tax law stays in place.

If Senator Obama gets his way on taxes, these same households would pay $701,885 more, on average, in 2009 than they would pay under current law. The gap -- for the super-rich -- between Obama and McCain: nearly $1 million.

The gap would actually run somewhat larger. Last week's Tax Policy Center report appeared just before Senator Obama detailed his plan to subject income over $250,000 to Social Security payroll tax. The Tax Policy Center estimates don't reflect this higher Social Security tax on the incomes of the wealthy.

What about Americans with less than $2.9 million in annual income? How would they fare under the Obama and McCain tax proposals?

Households currently making under $18,981 will save an average $567 in 2009 if Obama's tax proposals go into effect and $19 if McCain's plans become law. More middle-class households -- those making between $37,595 and $66,354 -- will average $1,402 in 2009 tax savings if Obama prevails and $319 if the nod goes to McCain.

The normally understated Tax Policy Center has a word for all these differences: "stark."

But if you really want "stark," don't compare tax burdens under Republican John McCain to tax burdens under Democrat Barack Obama. Compare tax burdens under Republican McCain to tax burdens under former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In 2009, says the Tax Policy Center, taxpayers making over $2.9 million a year will pay 28.3 percent of their incomes, on average, in federal taxes if John McCain tax policy becomes law and 39.2 percent if Barack Obama has his way.

These percentages factor in all major federal taxes, not just the individual income tax but estate and even corporate income taxes as well. Following Congressional Budget Office practice, the Tax Policy Center assumes that individuals ultimately bear the cost of corporate income taxes via the impact of these taxes on dividends, capital gains, and other forms of unearned income.

In Eisenhower's 1950s, America's richest paid far more in taxes than they would under either the McCain or Obama plans. In 1959, a half-century from 2009, taxpayers who made over $2.9 million, in today's dollars, paid over 45 percent of their incomes in individual income tax alone.

These 1959 wealthy also faced higher taxes on corporate profits and much higher estate taxes on the property they left behind at death. The top tax rate on estate wealth in 1959: 77 percent. McCain is proposing to cut the top estate tax rate down to 15 percent. Obama wants it frozen at the 45 percent rate that'll be in effect under current law in 2009.

In short, in Dwight Eisenhower's day, the super-rich paid, on average, over twice as much of their incomes in taxes as they will if John McCain tax law goes into effect. The good news for the super-rich: In November, Ike won't be on the ballot.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, mccain, taxes

Sam Pizzigati is the editor of the online weekly Too Much, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why All The Fuss
Posted by: Hopping Mad on Jun 19, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why all the obsession with how much tax the super rich pays.Every time a democrat says they're going to increase taxes on the super rich there's 1)wall to wall coverage of how much the increase is going to be 2)where is the money gonna come from.

Since president Bush came to office the super rich have received $Trils. in tax cuts and no one has said a word. No big headlines like "Bush Plans Big Tax Giveaway To Those
earning $3M/Year",not a whisper from MSM they just quietly take the money and say nothing.

Well where do you think the money comes from to afford these big tax cuts for the super rich? It comes from cuts in federal government spending which means that katrina was able to
happen on the scale that it did;education spending gets cut;health services gets cut;levees don't get shored up to prevent flooding(I mean why is there so much flooding all over the place?)

It's time the american people realize that the nanny state is alive and well but it's not there to benifit middle/lower income workers,
the rich use the Republican government as their cash-cow at the expence of everyone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sacrifice
Posted by: JSquercia on Jun 19, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every Economic Problem has the same solution according to Republicans : Cut Taxes most especially on Capital Gains . Clinton created a surplus and so Bush and Company said " We should return the Peoples Money to the People ". Shortly thereafter we returned to the Republican policy of Deficits so succesfully employed by Reagan . Then there was the worry about a Recession and so we had to stimulate the Economy with : WHAT ELSE Tax Cuts . No matter that we were engaged in a WAR and that we had NEVER cut taxes in a time of War . During WWII when we all shared the sacrifice we had a top Marginal Tax rate of over 90% . In addition there were higher Corporate taxes and taxes on Capital Gains. Today we are at war and yet ONLY the troops and their families are being asked for sacrifice . Certainly the wealthy who shamelessly continue to fight for the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and the ELIMINATION of the Estate Tax have NOT been asked to Sacrifice . A perfect example of this is the recent successful effort of Hedge Fund Managers to stop an effort to treat their wages as Ordinary Income rather than Capital Gains . Republicans stopped this one by threatening to Fillibuster . Warren Buffet said it best "this means these CEO's pay a lower Tax Rate than their Secretarys .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement