WSJ weighs in on the 95% claim

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.”┬áMr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals

There’s another catch: Because Mr. Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge “marginal” tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

ETA: Link

So Obama has managed to claim that socialist welfare programs are “tax cuts,” and the claim has not been seriously refuted by the McCain campaign.

It is good to see a major news source run a story like this, though.


WSJ weighs in on the 95% claim — 3 Comments

  1. It’s a tax cut the same way decreasing the amount of the budget increase is a spending cut.

    Washington uses a special language. It sounds like English, but it’s not.

  2. Pingback: Quote of the Day - Sounds Like Edition « Firearms & Freedom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.