WSJ excoriates McCain for tax flip-flops

[MarkWarner08]

McCain's Tax Blunder
July 30, 2008; Page A14

One of the miracles of this Presidential election campaign is that John McCain still has a chance to win, notwithstanding his best attempts to kick it away. In his latest random policy improvisation, the Arizona Senator tried to give up the tax issue.

On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Mr. McCain was asked to draw distinctions between his and the current Administration's economic policy. Given an easy opening, the Senator came back with his usual hodgepodge of new child-tax credits, promises to "veto every single pork barrel bill" and close wasteful government agencies, cut dependence on foreign oil and introduce a gas-tax holiday.

Then host George Stephanopoulos raised Social Security. "You're a longtime supporter of the private accounts, as President Bush called for them." Wishing to further distance himself from President Bush, when he could have drawn an equally useful contrast with Barack Obama, Mr. McCain didn't even own up to his support for private retirement accounts, simply saying, "I am a supporter of sitting down together and putting everything on the table and coming up with an answer."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121737539116495163.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

When a Republican has lost the Wall Street Journal's editorial page on taxes, that Republican is in serious trouble with his or her base.

[MODU]

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.

[MarkWarner08]

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.

[Torie]

Private social security accounts is an asinine and indefensible proposition that is a political loser to boot, so I am glad McCain is backing away from them. The WSJ isn't always right believe it or not.

[Torie]

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.

[MarkWarner08]

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.

[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.

[MarkWarner08]

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.

[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).

[MarkWarner08]

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).

19.26% of American households had gross incomes of over $100k in 2006. I agree that there should be some way to adjust it to cost of living. $100k in Greensboro, NC goes a lot further than a $100k in Greenwich, CT.

If only the economically disadvantaged received the benefit of Social Security (which would move the program into the Medicaid category), middle class support of it would soften. Of course, the real long-term economic problem for the OMB and CBO is not Medicare, Social Security's younger brother who has gone on a massive growth spurt recently. Fixing Medicare's shortfall should (and I think is) beginning to be seen as a more pressing issue.

[Sam Spade]

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

[Torie]

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.

[MarkWarner08]

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.

[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.

[Sbane]

The best compromise for this whole SS tax thing would be to exempt all income from @102,000-$200,000/250,0000. The whole point is to go after that top 1% which makes upto 35-45% of the nation's income, while not negatively impacting upper middle class families. But having a gap from 102,000-250,000 just looks retarded doesn't it.

[TheresNoMoney]

The best compromise for this whole SS tax thing would be to exempt all income from @102,000-$200,000/250,0000. The whole point is to go after that top 1% which makes upto 35-45% of the nation's income, while not negatively impacting upper middle class families. But having a gap from 102,000-250,000 just looks retarded doesn't it.

I would advocate raising the cap and lowering the tax rate. 

[MODU]

I would advocate lowering all the taxes across the board to take the stress off of individuals and their employers so you don't squelch the economy.  Off-set that with a 2% reduction in domestic spending to account for the housing and financial market bailouts.  Combined that should have a net zero impact on the overall deficit for the current projection year.

[Torie]

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.

Mark, I am just asking for a number from you. What should be the highest marginal tax rate, and what should be the marginal tax rate for those earning 300K per year? I'm a numbers guy. It makes things just so much more, well, concrete.

[Torie]

The best compromise for this whole SS tax thing would be to exempt all income from @102,000-$200,000/250,0000. The whole point is to go after that top 1% which makes upto 35-45% of the nation's income, while not negatively impacting upper middle class families. But having a gap from 102,000-250,000 just looks retarded doesn't it.

No number from you either sbane eh?  Is there any economic liberal on this forum willing to give me a number out there?  Heelllooo!  Opebo are you man enough to do so? 

[TheresNoMoney]

No number from you either sbane eh?  Is there any economic liberal on this forum willing to give me a number out there? 

I think the highest marginal income tax rate should be somewhere between 40%-45%.

[Torie]

No number from you either sbane eh?  Is there any economic liberal on this forum willing to give me a number out there? 

I think the highest marginal income tax rate should be somewhere between 40%-45%.

Excellent. Thank you for getting the ball rolling. I am sure sbane and Mark will come up with their numbers soon. Any other liberal want to give a number?

[Sbane]

The best compromise for this whole SS tax thing would be to exempt all income from @102,000-$200,000/250,0000. The whole point is to go after that top 1% which makes upto 35-45% of the nation's income, while not negatively impacting upper middle class families. But having a gap from 102,000-250,000 just looks retarded doesn't it.

No number from you either sbane eh?  Is there any economic liberal on this forum willing to give me a number out there?  Heelllooo!  Opebo are you man enough to do so? 

50%. I think we need a new income bracket at the top and immediately remove troops from Iraq and send them to the various tax havens around the world. The lord knows they don't have money for an army.

[MarkWarner08]

No number from you either sbane eh?  Is there any economic liberal on this forum willing to give me a number out there? 

I think the highest marginal income tax rate should be somewhere between 40%-45%.

Excellent. Thank you for getting the ball rolling. I am sure sbane and Mark will come up with their numbers soon. Any other liberal want to give a number?

All right.... Let's talk taxes! I'd advocate restoring the top marginal tax rate to 39%, which is where it was before Bush's reckless tax cuts. If Bush had created a rainy day fund (if you will, a "lock box"), social security and medicare would be in much better shape today.

Here's an article that support my view:
http://www.cbpp.org/3-27-08tax2.htm

Back to to my work... I hope to continue this conversation later.

[TheresNoMoney]

It's sad to think of how solid the country's financial situation was when Bush took over and where we are now. If we had controlled spending and not gone to war in Iraq, we could easily have universal health care, a health social secrurity fund, a strong dollar, and a balanced budget.

[War on Want]

No number from you either sbane eh?  Is there any economic liberal on this forum willing to give me a number out there? 

I think the highest marginal income tax rate should be somewhere between 40%-45%.

Excellent. Thank you for getting the ball rolling. I am sure sbane and Mark will come up with their numbers soon. Any other liberal want to give a number?

I want the higest marginal tax rate to be around max at 55-60 but going down progressivley pretty fast(By 100,000$ 40-45%)