WSJ Editorial Re-Examines Candidates’ Tax Plans

October 8 - In today's Wall Street Journal, Andrew Biggs and Kent Smetter of the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute attempt to reframe the debate around the candidates' tax proposals by comparing the current rates of taxation to the rates that would take effect if Obama or McCain's plans were implemented. Addressing the argument made by some that McCain's plan is inequitable because the top one-fifth and one percent of taxpayers would see the most money back, the authors claim that, owing to the greater share of federal taxes paid by top earners to begin with, the top one-fifth of earners would actually pay a 1 percent greater share of all federal taxes than before, and the total federal taxes paid by the top one percent would decrease by just 0.3 percent. The authors also call attention to the effect of the candidates' plans on marginal tax rates, and assert that Obama's plan would create higher marginal taxes for the largest earners.