United Liberty

The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, released this analysis (see graph below) of the tax plans proposed by both Barack Obama and John McCain. The first thing that jumps out at me is the stark difference for the top .1% of income earners. John McCain’s tax plan will decrease their tax liability by nearly $270,000, while for the same 147,000 families, Barack Obama plans to swing their tax liability in the other direction nearly $1 million annually by increasing their tax liability by just over $700,000. A married couple at the bottom of that .1% paid $976,706 in 2007, and under the Obama tax plan, that would change to $1.679 million. To give you an idea of what the tax brackets for 2007 were paying, take a look here.

McCain’s plan calls for a larger average tax cut across the board, focusing on those that are already shouldering a very significant burden of the taxation under the graduated tax brackets, being forced to hand over more than thirty cents of every dollar of earned income. Obama focuses his plan on the bottom of the income scale, giving the largest decrease in tax liability to the bottom 60% of taxpayers.

Obviously, they are appealing to opposite ends of the taxpayer spectrum. The only positive I see in McCain’s campaign is his understanding that the individuals who pay the most taxes will be unable or unwilling to support more of their income being taken by force every April. These people are the small businessmen and women who are continuing to achieve today, despite the overwhelming burden of taxes. They are also the small businessmen and women that provide 56% of all jobs, and 90% of America’s new jobs are created by them via the 27 million firms they own.

Sounds like someone is creating a tax plan for the greater good of the economy while someone else uses their tax plan to buy votes. I know what I think, but I will let you decide who “someone” and “someone else” are.

Graph from The Washington Post