Joe the Plumber Eligible for Obama Tax Cut?

From ABC News.com:

ABC News' Chris Bury is outside Toledo, near the home of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, a/k/a "Joe the Plumber," and reports that Wurzelbacher -- such a key part of Sen. John McCain's critique of Sen. Barack Obama's economic proposals -- acknowledged that he wants to purchase the plumbing business for $250-280,000, not that he would net that much in profits.

He would make much less, he said.

Which would seem to indicate that he would be eligible for an Obama tax cut, not that he would be subject to the tax increase from 36% to 39% Obama would impose on those making more than $200,000 per person, or $250,000 per family.

Wurzelbacher this morning told ABC News' Diane Sawyer that he was talking about, in Diane's words, the prospect, the hope that someday he would make $250,000.

"Well, exactly," he said. "Exactly. I mean, not that I don't want to be taxed. You have to be taxed. But to -- just because you work a little harder to have a little bit more money taken from you, I mean, that's scary. You know, as opposed to other people. I worked hard for it. Why should I be taxed more than other people?"

Diane asked, "If those people should not be taxed additionally, even though they're in the top 5% of America, what about people who make $1 million? Or $5 million?"

"Well, I mean, quite honestly, why should they be penalized for being successful?" Wurzelbacher asked. "I mean, that's what you're telling me. That's what it sounds like you're saying. That's wrong. Because you're successful, you have to pay more than everybody else? We all live in this country. It's a basic right. And Obama wants to take that basic right and penalize me for it, is what it comes down to. That's a very socialist view and it's incredibly wrong. I mean, $250,000 now. What if he decides, well, you know, $150,000, you're pretty rich, too. Let's go ahead and lower it again. You know it's a slippery slope. When's it going to stop?"

Tax Related Misconceptions in the Final Debate

Wednesday night was the third and final debate between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, and as can be expect taxes and the economy were central issues of the debate. Unfortunately, both candidates used confusing figures and lies about their opponent to make their points. Fortunately, the tax experts of the Tax Foundation have reviewed the CNN transcript of the debate and have reviewed the misleading statements made by both candidates.

Fact Checking Sen. McCain

Early in the debate, John McCain once again voiced his concern over the rising national debt and claimed that he could balance the budget in his first four years in office. But given that his tax policies contain major tax cuts that will not pay for themselves (especially in 2011 and 2012 after Bush tax cuts expire), it is a pretty safe bet that Sen. McCain is not going to be balancing the budget in 2012. We definitely know that neither Obama nor McCain is going to balance the budget in the first year or two of his administration.

Next in the debate, for about the millionth time in the past six months, McCain said this about Sen. Obama's voting record:

Sen. Obama talks about voting for budgets. He voted twice for a budget resolution that increases the taxes on individuals making $42,000 a year.

Once again, that was a non-binding party-line vote taken earlier this year in the Senate. And if voting records on tax issues are relevant despite what the senator is proposing as a candidate, then shouldn't Sen. McCain's position on the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (which he opposed) be fair game?

On the issue of energy, Sen. McCain said this about trade with Canada:

By the way, when Sen. Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadians said, "Yes, and we'll sell our oil to China."

What he doesn't understand is that even if Canada shipped the oil to China, the effect on the U.S. would be relatively small given that other oil that is currently going to China would flow to the United States. The difference would be transportation costs and any impact of a tariff. Basically, this statement ignores the fact that there is a world market for oil.

Moving to the issue of healthcare, Sen. McCain said this in support of his $5,000 per family health care tax credit:

The average cost of a health care insurance plan in America today is $5,800. I'm going to give them $5,000 to take with them wherever they want to go, and this will give them affordability.

The reason I bring this up is because later, Sen. Obama quoted the figure as being $12,000. It appears that Sen. McCain got his figure from this report, which says this: "Nationwide, annual premiums averaged $2,613 for single coverage and $5,799 for family plans in the 2006-2007 period. For single policies, annual premiums ranged from $1,163 for persons under age 18 to $5,090 for persons aged 60-64. For family policies, premiums ranged from $2,325 for policies covering children under age 18 to $9,201 for families headed by persons aged 60-64.

Obama's $12,000 figure appears to come from this Kaiser report.

Fact Checking Sen. Obama

Throughout the debate, Sen. Obama repeatedly showed an unfortunate ignorance of one of the fundamental principles of taxation: all taxes are paid by people. On multiple occasions, Obama claimed that businesses or corporations "can afford" to pay higher taxes. But such a statement is just ridiculous. Companies have no "ability to pay" taxes. Does the corporation's building pay the tax? How about its fax machine or water cooler? No. People pay the taxes. Here is one such example of why Sen. Obama would get an F in public finance:

Then Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break.

What Sen. Obama doesn't understand or doesn't want to tell the American public is that when Exxon Mobil writes that check to Uncle Sam, some PERSON is paying the price for that. In the short-run, that person could be a shareholder, a worker, or a consumer. But the fact that Exxon Mobil has a lower after-tax profit means that some PERSON is worse off. For example, Exxon Mobil would likely reduce its dividend payment, or its share price could fall, and that hurts every PERSON who was invested in Exxon Mobil at the time the tax was enacted.

And this isn't controversial. If you called up Obama's top economic advisers Jason Furman or Austan Goolsbee on November 5 (after the election) and asked them who pays taxes, both of them would tell you that people pay all taxes, and that a company merely acts as a means of collecting for the government the taxes imposed on owners of capital and in some cases, the company's workers. In fact, if we truly taxed Haig-Simons income as a pure income tax would call for, it could be possible for no tax to be levied on a corporation assuming retained earnings were taxed.

Sen. Obama made a similar gaffe here:

Because after eight years of failed policies, he and I both agree that what we're going to have to do is to re-prioritize, make sure that we're investing in the American people, give tax cuts not to the wealthiest corporations, but give them to small businesses and give them to individuals who are struggling right now, make sure that we finally get serious about energy independence, something that has been languishing in Washington for 30 years, and make sure that our kids get a great education and can afford to go to college.

The fact of the matter is that there is no wealthy corporation. The stockholders of a corporation that holds in its business operation a lot of money (retained earnings) and assets may be wealthy, but the corporation itself is not wealthy. It just makes no sense. It's just populist rhetoric that sounds good.

On the issue of whose tax plan would provide more relief to middle-income taxpayers, Barack Obama once again brought out this line:

And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut. In fact, independent studies have looked at our respective plans and have concluded that I provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Sen. McCain does.

The 95 percent figure is correct. Even though many conservatives have argued that you can't cut taxes for people who pay no income taxes, most of those who are receiving refundable tax credits on the income tax side are still net taxpayers given that they do pay payroll taxes, corporate income tax, excise taxes, etc. (And even that assumes the fact a person is a net taxpayer even matters versus the net fiscal incidence of the person, and once we go down that road, at least we are actually getting somewhere on the core questions of public finance and the role of government in distributional outcomes.)

The independent study that Sen. Obama is referring to comes from Tax Policy Center, which does indeed verify this fact for middle-income tax units when you exclude the effects of the two candidates' health care plans. What Sen. Obama doesn't tell you is that Sen. McCain's health care tax plan (which he criticizes on many occasions and runs about a billion television ads a day on) would actually provide more savings to middle-income tax units (as a group) than Sen. Obama's health care plan. And when you include the effects of these health care plans, the three-times as much tax relief claim no longer holds. When TPC ran the tax plans, they analyzed the health care plans separately from the other parts of the candidates' tax plans.

Speaking of Sen. McCain's health care plan, Sen. Obama once again made this invalid comparison about it:

By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you've got $5,000 and it's going to cost you $12,000, that's a loss for you.

Sen. Obama's saying outright that Sen. McCain's plan is a loss for you is nonsense.

The $12,000 cost and $5,000 credit are not comparable unless one assumes two facts for McCain's health care tax plan: (1) the worker will be dropped by his employer, and (2) the worker's wages will not increase to offset the lost health care. For most workers, this isn't going to happen. If somebody is receiving $12,000 in health insurance that is now taxed as ordinary income (and there is no dropping of coverage), a $5,000 credit is going to more than offset the additional tax a person must pay on his/her employer-provided health insurance. Eventually, since the credit is indexed for inflation and not health-care costs, the credit's value would diminish. But over the next ten years, Tax Policy Center has estimated that McCain's health care tax plan is a $1.3 trillion tax cut for American taxpayers, and they have shown that the average middle-income tax unit would be better off under McCain's health care tax plan than Obama's in that time period. Now it is true that the average doesn't hold for everyone in the middle and some will gain a lot in the middle and some could lose a lot in the middle (such as those whose coverage is dropped), but the reality is that the health care tax plan is the most progressive part of Sen. McCain's plan. It would make the federal income tax more progressive.

Tax Misrepresentations in Last Night’s Debate

Last night was the second debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, and as usual there were numerous misrepresentations of the facts. Thanks to The Tax Foundation Blog, who have reviewed the CNN transcript, below are the tax related errors from both candidates.

Obama's Errors

Early in the debate, Sen. Obama took a shot at the fiscal policies of President Bush:

But I think it's important just to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush came into office, we had surpluses. And now we have half-a-trillion-dollar deficit annually.

When George Bush came into office, our debt -- national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. We've almost doubled it.

And so while it's true that nobody's completely innocent here, we have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets.

First, on the issue of a surplus when Bush came into office, it's somewhat unfair to say that he inherited a surplus situation given that a recession began the month he took office. (The deficits of the recent years are another story.) Regarding the claim that we have had $500 billion deficits annually under Pres. Bush, that is not entirely true. The deficit for the fiscal year that was just completed (Sept. 30) was estimated to be $438 billion. However, the highest deficit of the seven years previous was $413 billion in FY 2004. The average deficit in that eight year period was $248 billion (which includes a surplus year of FY 2001) and the average deficit of the past four years has been $292 billion.

It is true that for FY 2009, the deficit will likely be astronomical and higher than $500 billion, but we have not had "half-a-trillion dollar deficits annually" under Pres. Bush. As for the debt rising from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, the starting point is closer to $6 trillion than $5 trillion (5.7) when Bush assumed office.

As for the claim that Sen. McCain voted for Bush's budgets, there are many parts of the budget that are voted upon each year. And actually, Sen. McCain voted against two of the major provisions that added to the national debt: the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. (More on this later.)

On the issue of Sen. McCain's tax cuts, Obama said this about who would benefit:

Now, when Sen. McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts, that's not sharing a burden.

The $700,000 figure is only an "additional" tax cut for those CEOs if you do not count the Bush tax cuts that have already been put in place. Since those tax cuts are set to expire, that's a technically valid point. But this is somewhat misleading voters when he says "additional tax cuts" because it can be interpreted by many that those CEOs would be getting that much in tax cuts on top of the tax cuts they have received from the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire on Jan. 1, 2011.

Responding to Sen. McCain's comments about tax policy, Sen. Obama made many claims about his tax plan and that of his opponent in rapid succession in this portion of the debate:

So let's be clear about my tax plan and Sen. McCain's, because we're not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent.

If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down.

Now, Sen. McCain talks about small businesses. Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut under my plan.

And we provide a 50 percent tax credit so that they can buy health insurance for their workers, because there are an awful lot of small businesses that I meet across America that want to do right by their workers but they just can't afford it. Some small business owners, a lot of them, can't even afford health insurance for themselves.

Now, in contrast, Sen. McCain wants to give a $300 billion tax cut, $200 billion of it to the largest corporations and a hundred thousand of it -- a hundred billion of it going to people like CEOs on Wall Street.

He wants to give average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts. That is not fair. And it doesn't work.

Sen. McCain's Errors

Like Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain repeated many of the same misleading statements on tax policy that he has made on the campaign trail throughout the campaign season

Early in the debate, Sen. McCain made it a point to complain about the $10 trillion national debt:

We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?

If Sen. McCain is concerned with the national debt, his tax proposals do not show it. That's because over the next ten years, according to the Tax Policy Center, Sen. McCain's tax proposals would grow the national debt by over $4 trillion. He can't cut that much spending by just going after earmarks. (Sen. Obama also doesn't balance the budget under his tax plans and likely spending over the next ten years, according to TPC.)

On the issue of tax history, McCain made this statement to attack Obama's tax plan:

But he wants to raise taxes. My friends, the last president to raise taxes during tough economic times was Herbert Hoover, and he practiced protectionism as well, which I'm sure we'll get to at some point.

My friends, that depends upon your definition of "tough economic times." Pres. George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990, a period of stagnant economic growth. And FDR, who followed Hoover (take note, Joe Biden, if you are reading) in 1933, raised taxes throughout the 1930s and 1940s.

In that same portion of the debate, McCain also criticized Obama for frequently changing his tax plan. While it is true that many key parts of Obama's tax plan started off murky in this campaign and became clearer as the campaign moved on (payroll tax cap and capital gains, to name two), a similar problem is that Sen. McCain had different plans at different times of the day. Both he and Sen. Obama will say one thing on the stump and tell organizations like the Tax Foundation or Tax Policy Center something else. Sen. McCain does that with his rhetoric about how he would provide Americans with an alternative flat tax (a la Fred Thompson), as well as repeal the AMT, when in fact he would merely patch it. Furthermore, his position on tax policy has changed rather significantly given his opposition to the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, and now his support for the extension of those tax cuts plus many more tax cuts.