PDA

View Full Version : McCain on taxes.



Gan
04-16-2008, 01:56 AM
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In his most wide-ranging speech on the economy, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain on Tuesday laid out an agenda that would change the tax code, freeze discretionary spending and temporarily suspend federal gas taxes.

The speech, to be delivered at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, comes less than a week after McCain provided a broad outline of his economic plans, including a plan to stem foreclosures.

"We need reforms that promote growth and opportunity. We need rules that assure fairness and punish wrongdoing in the market. We need tax policies that respect the wage-earners and job creators who make this economy run, and help them to succeed in a global economy," McCain said.

McCain, with the exception of military spending and veterans' benefits, called for a one-year freeze on the amount of money Congress allocates to discretionary programs. This year, that amounts to $460 billion.

"'Discretionary spending' is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised. Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking," McCain said.

Taxes: Time for a new system
In terms of taxes, McCain made several proposals. He said he would offer an alternative tax system that would consist of just two tax rates and a larger standard deduction than under the current code. Tax filers would be allowed to choose whether they wished to file under the current system or the new one.

"Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes - what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS," McCain said.

McCain has not settled on the details of his tax plan such as what the rates would be, his senior adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a call with reporters.

Holtz-Eakin said that whatever McCain proposes "would be economically beneficial and would restore compliance." The current complexity of the tax code is often blamed as one factor for the tax gap - the difference between what tax filers owe and what they actually pay.

But Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, said if given the choice between two systems, people would opt for the one in which they owe the least, thereby reducing overall tax revenue.

An analysis of a plan with a similar structure, the Tax Policy Center found that tax revenue could be reduced by $7 trillion over 10 years if all taxpayers took advantage of it. Under that plan, proposed by former Republican candidate Fred Thompson, all taxpayers would owe less than under the current system, but filers making between $100,000 and $500,000 would see the biggest break.

McCain also proposed phasing out the Alternative Minimum Tax and boosting the dependent child exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 per child.
For corporations, he said he would seek to lower the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.

Oil, loans and jobs
In a proposal sure to get the most attention in the near-term given record-setting oil prices, McCain proposed a suspension of the federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day - traditionally the heaviest season for driving. At just over 18 cents per gallon, that would save the average driver about $2.35 every time he fills up his tank. The plan is estimated to cost roughly $10 billion.

McCain also touched on student loans. He gave his support for congressional proposals to have the federal government advance funds to loan guaranty agencies so they can make loans if other lenders drop out of the federal student loan program.

He also proposed that unemployment insurance taxes be used to build "a buffer account" for each worker, which he could draw on directly if he loses his job.

"We have an unemployment insurance program straight out of the 1950s. It was designed to assist workers through a few tough months during an economic downturn until their old jobs came back. That program has no relevance to the world we live in today," McCain said.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/15/news/economy/mccain_economic_plan/index.htm?cnn=yes

__________________________________________________

Hmmmmmm.

This requires some thought, and more detail.

At first glance, there are things I like and some things I dont like.

Keller
04-16-2008, 02:56 AM
I don't know what his actual tax proposal is. I admit that. With that out of the way -- it is absolutely crazy to say "taxes are too complicated, so we'll give taxpayers another level of complexity by allowing them to use a separate system if they wish."

It's clear that sophisticated taxpayers (either by personal knowledge or having the resources to make hiring a professional worthwhile) will still do both returns and just file the one in which they pay less taxes.

Do we need to simplify the code? Sure. But this is not simplifying anything.

Next -- why lower the rates on corporations? It seems like a hasty attempt to correct for the "double" taxation of corporate income. If that's the policy -- attack the source. Either tax LLCs and other pass-throughs that offer limited liability "doubly" like corporations, remove the corporate income tax and make corporate income directly taxable to the shareholders like a passthrough entity, or remove the capital gains tax. Those are all right answers. The wrong answer is to lower the highest marginal rate on corporations to score political brownie points.

longshot
04-16-2008, 03:42 AM
It's not an issue of "simplification." Any flattening of the marginal tax curve is a good thing.

The main argument against a flat tax rate is that it's regressive for those with the least income. Cutting down the curve two rates is a huge step in the right direction.

I don't know how I feel about the unemployment insurance changes... I'd have to learn more details. It's important to have a sufficient buffer so people have the ability to search for a new position.

Keller
04-16-2008, 04:20 AM
Same qualification you gave in the other thread. I'm not trying to pick apart your post, I just have a lot of questions and comments about specific parts.


It's not an issue of "simplification."

The article says McCain says "simplification" is the issue. I understand there are many reasons, some better than others, to reduce or even eliminate progressive rates -- but he's cloaking his alternative 2 bracket system as a simplification to the "pages of rules" in the current system. First, like the AltMin tax, it's only going to further complicate peoples taxes. Maybe some low-income individuals who usually use H&R block (or similar services) will choose to only complete the easier 2 bracket, higher standard deduction return and save the money from paying a preparer; but a considerable number will go through the trouble of completing both returns and only filing the one with the lowest tax liability. That's also only assuming that this 2 brakcet return is perfect in its first rendition and doesn't "need" (read: lobbies will make sure it does) to be "tinkered" with by Congress.


Any flattening of the marginal tax curve is a good thing.

Can you explain exactly what you mean by marginal tax curve? Then, also, please explain why you think it's a good thing. I think what you mean is any reduction in progressivity but I couldn't find anything in a cursory google search.


The main argument against a flat tax rate is that it's regressive for those with the least income.

I think you mean flat sales tax. A flat income tax is exactly that, flat. Of course, the "unfairness" comes in when you consider the marginal burden a flat income tax places on low income individuals. At the margin, the utility of the last dollar paid by the low income individual is higher than the last dollar of the high income individual.


Cutting down the curve two rates is a huge step in the right direction.

What is a rate? I'm sure once you explain what a marginal tax curve is it'll make more sense -- but it also might not be.

Daniel
04-16-2008, 07:39 AM
I'm quite worried about this. Our national security is becoming more and more dependent on the ability of agencies and departments besides DoD to project American power.

If he cuts all discretionary spending except for DoD he's pretty much stopped this from happen, which is something that top military brass would say is a mistake.

I fucking hate it when fiscal conservatives start talking about spending less money, but don't take the time to figure out where the money does need to be spent and instead put some arbitrary limitation on anything that isn't a death laser.

Parkbandit
04-16-2008, 08:44 AM
His tax reform is nothing but talk. GREAT! I can, if I choose not to reduce my tax burden, use the new quick form! YAH! I'm just going to give the Government more of my money for the convenience of filing! Tax reform doesn't mean keeping the same antiquated system in place, and adding to it.

I like the gas tax holiday.. they should have done that instead of the stupid handout program.

All in all, it sounds like a bunch of bullshit from someone running for President. Oh wait.. it is.

Trouble
04-16-2008, 09:43 AM
I'm very much for simplfying the tax code but it would have far-reaching effects on various industries. For example, the housing industry: The main reason I own instead of rent is because of the deductions. If I didn't have to worry about my deductions I'd move more frequenly and probably wouldn't buy anything unless I got married or something.

I do like the idea of like a 30k standard deduction then a 10-15% tax. My overall tax rate has been in that range for years anyway, but it's been unnecessarily complicated to get there.

Gan
04-16-2008, 09:49 AM
I own instead of rent because I like paying to equity that I own, not equity someon else owns. ;)

Parkbandit
04-16-2008, 10:22 AM
Lessening my tax burden has never played into my purchasing a house or property.

The more I read about the so called "fair" tax system.. the more I like it. People point out the ways people will get away without paying taxes.. but there are already MILLIONS of people doing that with our current system.

longshot
04-16-2008, 10:54 AM
Same qualification you gave in the other thread. I'm not trying to pick apart your post, I just have a lot of questions and comments about specific parts.



The article says McCain says "simplification" is the issue. I understand there are many reasons, some better than others, to reduce or even eliminate progressive rates -- but he's cloaking his alternative 2 bracket system as a simplification to the "pages of rules" in the current system. First, like the AltMin tax, it's only going to further complicate peoples taxes. Maybe some low-income individuals who usually use H&R block (or similar services) will choose to only complete the easier 2 bracket, higher standard deduction return and save the money from paying a preparer; but a considerable number will go through the trouble of completing both returns and only filing the one with the lowest tax liability. That's also only assuming that this 2 brakcet return is perfect in its first rendition and doesn't "need" (read: lobbies will make sure it does) to be "tinkered" with by Congress.



Can you explain exactly what you mean by marginal tax curve? Then, also, please explain why you think it's a good thing. I think what you mean is any reduction in progressivity but I couldn't find anything in a cursory google search.



I think you mean flat sales tax. A flat income tax is exactly that, flat. Of course, the "unfairness" comes in when you consider the marginal burden a flat income tax places on low income individuals. At the margin, the utility of the last dollar paid by the low income individual is higher than the last dollar of the high income individual.



What is a rate? I'm sure once you explain what a marginal tax curve is it'll make more sense -- but it also might not be.

I agree with what you wrote, and I think we're saying the same thing. Progression is the same thing as increasing marginal tax rates. Flattening out the curve (or eliminating levels of progression) has a lot of benefits. We used two different terms for the same thing.

What you say about flat income taxes, and flat sales taxes, I believe to be correct.

I do remember a past flat income tax plan that allowed capital gains and other forms of income to be taxed differently than ordinary income. If this is true of McCain's program, then it's possible to make an argument that it's regressive. .. even if in it's designed to be (look?) proportional.

I have very little experience with tax matters. I just wanted to point out that the real benefit is not making things look easier (having just two rates), but is from eliminating progression (or flattening the marginal tax rate).

I wasn't in disagreement with anything you wrote... I would have quoted it or something.

Keller
04-16-2008, 11:20 AM
Flattening out the curve (or eliminating levels of progression) has a lot of benefit.

Here's the thing. Most studies I've seen cited (I'm not an economist, but do read a fair bit of tax law policy scholarship) indicate that work is significantly inelastic with regard to marginal tax rates. The two opposing "effects" are the substitution effect (people substituting leisure for work opportunity) and the income effect (people having to work more hours to meet their after-tax take-home target). Given that there are very few hourly workers who are in high tax brackets, the marginal tax rate generally will not have a substitution effect except in the classic example of the professional moonlighting as a part-time professor or consultant. But how often does that really happen?

I think the most convincing argument in favor of progressivity within the tax code is the one I alluded to in my earlier post. The code is only progressive with regard to absolute dollars and not with regard to the utility of the last dollar at the margin. Is it a perfect system? Not really. You can't accurately measure the marginal utility of the two thousanth dollar from an individual making 30k/yr compared to the hundred thousandth dollar from an individual making $400k. Even if you could it would not be consistent horizontally among similar incomes. But inaccuracy is no reason abandon the idea of progressivity all together.

I'd be interested to see the reasons people believe there should be a proportional tax.