WSJ excoriates McCain for tax flip-flops

[Sam Spade]

McCain just needs to say "Yes, I am, but I am also open to listening to alterntives."  Simple answer, it would be accurate, and it would never make the news.

He did say that (more or less) to George Stephanopolous, which is what angered the Club for Growth and the WSJ. They want an absolutist "no new taxes" stand from McCain. That kind of ideological rigidity will handicap McCain's fiscal options and could lead to another costly budget standoff.

The squib refers to privatizing social security to some degree or not, not about new taxes, so your post poses a disconnect for me.

I interpreted the WSJ's dismay as a reaction to McCain leaving the door open on payroll tax hikes, not closing the door to privatization. Perhaps it's a combination of both. It's been the WSJ's position of years that the 6.2% SS tax should remain as regressive as possible. Bill Gates paying the same SS tax as someone making $102k apparently makes sense to them.

I thought Democrats didn't want to do anything to piss off their continued attempts at breaking away more of the upper middle-class from Republicans.  The Bill Gates line is simply a red herring.

[Sam Spade]

McCain just needs to say "Yes, I am, but I am also open to listening to alterntives."  Simple answer, it would be accurate, and it would never make the news.

He did say that (more or less) to George Stephanopolous, which is what angered the Club for Growth and the WSJ. They want an absolutist "no new taxes" stand from McCain. That kind of ideological rigidity will handicap McCain's fiscal options and could lead to another costly budget standoff.

The squib refers to privatizing social security to some degree or not, not about new taxes, so your post poses a disconnect for me.

I interpreted the WSJ's dismay as a reaction to McCain leaving the door open on payroll tax hikes, not closing the door to privatization. Perhaps it's a combination of both. It's been the WSJ's position of years that the 6.2% SS tax should remain as regressive as possible. Bill Gates paying the same SS tax as someone making $102k apparently makes sense to them.

I thought Democrats didn't want to do anything to piss off their continued attempts at breaking away more of the upper middle-class from Republicans.  The Bill Gates line is simply a red herring.

So Warren Buffett is using a red herring example when he says he should pay the same tax rate as his secretary?

It's more about tax fairness than scoring short-term political gains. While the idea will probably die in Congress (no member wants to be the next MMM, who cast the deciding vote for Clinton's mega-tax hike), it should be considered for its policy merits. I'd hope Democrats would eventually shift Social Security to  means-tested entitlement program structure. Alas, there's even less support for that than there is for holding those making >$102k to the same tax system as the rest of us.

How many people make over $102,000 a year not named Warren Buffett or Bill Gates?  While surely Obama's plan would not affect these people - what would be the effect on someone who makes $300,000 to $400,000 a year and lives in places along the East Coast where that simply doesn't go as far.

Keep in mind, I'm not opposed to moving Social Security, slowly but surely, to being a more means-tested program in terms of payout.  But not in terms of pay-in.  Actually, that solution is the only method I can think of that could possibly kill Social Security (in terms of popular support) over the long haul (as opposed to the silly privitization idea).

[Sam Spade]

Yes, we agree.  Medicare is the more worrying problem.

[Sam Spade]

What should be the highest marginal federal tax rate Mark?  What should be the marginal tax rate on those making 300K per year? I assume that  you know that eliminating the cap on income subject to the social security tax is just an income tax since no additional social security benefits attend the higher tax.

So it's a massive tax hike with little benefit for those who will be most burdened by it. Is that unfair? Just an unfair as the current regressive payroll tax arrangement.  If it provides greater solvency to a system teetering on fiscal ruin, it may be worth the extra cost to the top quintile.

If it involves raising the overall tax rate above a certain level, they won't want it.  They'll prefer to see the system or scaled back.  And they'll react negatively against whoever implemented it.  I've seen this game before.