Political philosophy of candidate, by top marginal tax rate supported.

Pie Chart

Clip this and save it for future elections, so you can tell the difference at a glance.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

10 replies on “Political philosophy of candidate, by top marginal tax rate supported.”

  1. Wow, I didn’t realize Reagan was such a hard-core red, what with a top marginal rate of 50% for most of his administration.

    And Eisenhower? Sheesh! With a 91% top marginal rate throughout his tenure he was obviously hell-bent upon handing this country straight over to the Kremlin!

    Today’s socialists are pikers.

  2. Big, big, BIG difference between high marginal rates in the past and the proposed tax plan from Mr. Obama. Under Obama’s plan, the bottom 43% of wage-earners — who have ZERO federal tax liability right now — will start receiving annual checks of $500, taken directly from the top 5% who earn it. Meanwhile, those in the 44-94% bracket will see their tax bill go down by a dollar, or maybe as much as two hundred.

    It’s not so much an issue of WHO is paying how much (although that is important), but WHERE is it being spent. This spread the wealth around business is what’s socialist, and it’s nothing more than a vast expansion of welfare.

  3. I. Publius,

    What’s your source for this notion of handing out $500 annual checks to people who pay no taxes currently? Because the only instance of that which I can think of came from the Bush White House this past year.

    No, I don’t think that you can logically call Obama’s tax plan a ‘vast expansion of welfare.’ Welfare is handing free money to people who are indigent and or extremely poor. Wheras Obama isn’t talking about giving free money to the poor. He’s talking about taxing the middle class less.

    You could just as easily say that the building of public roads is ‘socialist,’ since it involves taxing people with money and using it to provide a resource that is available even to poor people who have no income to tax. What about public schools? Even homeless children are guaranteed educations that cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars a year. Is that socialism? Are you against that now?

    At the end of the day, it’s a pretty dumb idea for McCain supporters to go throwing the term ‘socialism’ in such a ridiculously cavalier manner. Have you ever looked at the agenda and writings of the actual American Socialist Party? Those people are literally Communists. By softening the definition of ‘socialism’ to mean ‘anything that helps regular people’ you are making those nutcases look like moderates. The vast majority of Americans are going to be pretty damn happy next year when their wallets are a little fatter thanks to Obama’s middle class tax cuts. And I DO NOT want your reckless definitions to make those people start saying ‘hey, this socialism stuff is great. Let’s vote for the guy on the Socialist ticket next election!’

  4. Jackson, it’s in Obama’s own tax plan. I read it a few days ago… should be pretty easy to find.

    The plan calls for very VERY modest reductions in federal taxes for the middle class — taxpayers in the 44-94% range among wage earners. The bulk of the tax cuts (IOW, the bulk of the money taken from the top 5%)aren’t going to be tax cuts at all, but rather straight payments to people who have ZERO tax liability — people in the 0-43% range who currently don’t pay taxes. They will get $500 or $1000, depending on whether there are one or two wage earners in the family.

    Those are the people who are going to be pretty damn happy next year when their wallets are fatter. The vast majority of taxpayers are going to be virtually indifferent, because they’ll have a couple less dollars to pay in taxes — and it’s really just that, a couple dollars.

    As for the definition of socialist, it’s spot-on with Obama-Biden. They literally seek to take money directly from those who earn it and give it to people who don’t. What do YOU call that?

  5. The Orlando Sentinel editorializes about this:

    Mr. Obama’s plan also calls for giving a $500 tax break to Americans making $75,000 a year or less, and rebates to those who don’t pay income tax. Mr. McCain’s campaign calls that “welfare.” But unlike welfare — payments to people who aren’t working — Mr. Obama’s rebate would go to people who are. It would essentially beef up the earned-income tax credit, a policy that originated with Republicans. And even those working Americans who don’t earn enough to owe income taxes pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Mr. McCain himself has proposed a $2,500 health-insurance credit that would be available to individuals who don’t pay income taxes.

    If it’s socialism when Obama does it, then it’s likewise socialism when McCain does it. I must note that the Earned Income Tax Credit was created in 1975, and strengthened under President Reagan 1986.

  6. We’re talking about matters of degree here. Obama is for progressive taxation, McCain is for progressive taxation. Hell, even Huckabee and the “Fair Tax” includes paying out money to everyone such that you might be receiving more money from the US Government than you’re paying (before we even get to government programs).

    Of course, we can’t only blame these people. Lets blame the person who inspired them, the biggest socialist of them all: Adam Smith.

    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

  7. I’m sure Palin is against the government sending checks to residents who pay no income taxes (considering how much of a political failure they’ve always been in Alaska).

Comments are closed.