The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- In Afghanistan Decision, Risks Abound
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Tax Impact
September 10, 2008 5:30 PM
There are some interesting nuggets on taxes in our latest ABC/Post poll: Registered voters by a 17-point margin are more apt to think their taxes would rise under Barack Obama than under John McCain, a perception that cuts closely to vote preference.
So why are they even overall? Because Obama makes it back among those who see a positive or neutral tax impact.
All told 51 percent think their federal taxes would increase under an Obama presidency, while 34 percent think they’d pay more in taxes with McCain in the White House. Just 9 percent think McCain would cut their taxes; slightly more, 13 percent, say Obama would do so. The rest think their tax load would stay the same. (McCain, it's worth noting, has been running ads hammering Obama as a tax-raiser.)
Among people who think their taxes would go up under Obama, our poll finds that 72 percent support McCain for president; it’s interesting that nearly a quarter of them, 23 percent, support Obama anyway. Among those who think their taxes would rise under McCain, similarly, 75 percent support Obama; 18 percent stick with McCain nonetheless.
Since more people think Obama would raise their taxes, he loses more ground there. But he gets more support from people who think he’d cut their taxes or leave them alone than does McCain – and that brings the contest between them back essentially to a dead heat.
Specifically, McCain’s supported by about three-quarters of people who think he’d cut their taxes, but Obama wins 93 percent of those who think he’d bring their taxes down. And Obama does 7 points better than McCain among people who think he’d leave their taxes unchanged.
The interplay among these views helps explain why the two ultimately come out even in overall trust to handle taxes – 45 percent of registered voters pick Obama, 44 percent McCain – as well as in overall vote preference, 47-46 percent.
It’s also noteworthy that there’s less overlap on these questions than you might expect: Just 14 percent of registered voters say that both Obama and McCain alike would boost their taxes as president. That suggests we’re seeing political (and certainly partisan) judgments – but not sheer cynicism.
One other of our results touches on personal finances: Sixty-five percent of registered voters describe themselves as financially secure, about the same as in July; many fewer, though, say they’re “very” secure financially – just 20 percent. (We know from our weekly consumer confidence index that ratings of personal finances are always better than views of the buying climate and national economy.)
What’s interesting is the correlation with vote: Among financially secure Americans, McCain has a 55-38 percent lead; among the financially insecure (who’re more apt to be Democrats), it’s Obama by 63-30.
Per our Political Unit’s Teddy Davis, a summary of the candidates’ tax positions follows:
McCain says he’d make permanent the 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts that expire at the end of 2010, including those that set the tax rate for most dividend and capital-gains income at 15 percent. He’d would preserve most of George W. Bush's temporary cut in estate taxes, establishing a 15 percent rate for estates worth $10 million or more.
McCain says he’d eliminate the alternative minimum tax, double the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000 and would cut the corporate income-tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.
Obama, for his part, says he’d make the 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts permanent for individuals making less than $200,000 a year; people in the top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s tax levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs).
Obama says he’d return the top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to 20 percent; the tax rate on dividends also would be 20 percent for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. He proposes effectively to repeal the estate tax for 99.7 of estates, retaining it at 45 percent for estates valued at over $7 million per couple.
Obama also says he’d provide a yearly tax credit of $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples who work and pay Social Security taxes; and an exemption from income tax for people 65 and older earning less than $50,000 a year. On income above $250,000 per year Obama would impose an additional payroll tax of between 2 and 4 percent, starting in 10 years.
September 10, 2008 in 2008 General Election, Economy | Permalink | User Comments (71)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The marginal rate on $250-$260k under Obama's proposal would be 36%, not 39%.
Also, gross income of $250-260k annually would not be high enough to hit the 36% rate, which applies to taxable income (after deductions and credits). There would be no difference in income tax liability at this level.
Posted by: Skye | Sep 11, 2008 5:43:10 PM
Keep in mind that Americans at all income levels will pay more income taxes if McCain becomes president because he proposes to tax as ordinary income the full value of employer provided health care benefits. Employees have never before paid any tax on this valuable fringe benefit, but McCain would impose taxes on workers for this as ordinary income at marginal rates up to 35%.
Posted by: Skye | Sep 11, 2008 6:18:44 PM
Sen Obama has said so much you cannot keep it straight. Now this says taxes go up on 250,000 per person. At saddlebrook it 250,000 per family. Earlier it was 150,000 per family or 75,000 per person. Which is it? Bottom line is HE WILL RAISE TAXES on most of us to pay for his programs. Increasing corporate taaxes which he also wants will send jobs away. At least Sen McCain is consistent in his campiagn of not raising taxes at all.
Posted by: cat | Sep 11, 2008 6:24:21 PM
really do you really think obamas gonna do what he says the country would go into depression destroy buisness and give away money to poor people dont want free money they want a good job this is not a socialist country never will be you know clinton promissed me a tax cut guess what my taxes went up because when you look at ecomy and jobs is this the time during a recession to raise taxes ?
Posted by: david reyes | Sep 11, 2008 7:00:09 PM
this bridge from nowhere thing she said thanks for the money then no to the bridge she used the money for more important things both of the senator for the dems voted for this bridge then when congress had a vote on instead of funding the bridge use the money for katrina guess what they voted againnnnnnn to fund the bridge instead i think she made a smart decission dont you also senators vote on ear marks not govenors
Posted by: david reyes | Sep 11, 2008 7:05:40 PM
Can we stop arguing with the Mcsame robots they will never get it. McSame means more war. How the hell will he pay for it? By cutting your taxes? LMAO I got a bridge is Alaska I'd like to sell you. Does Obama automatically mean more war.... NO! Do the math! We save big time with NO MORE WAR!!
Posted by: MORE_LIES | Sep 11, 2008 10:32:41 PM
It amazes me that people who make less thank 50k a year would think that McCain would look out for them! Isn't McCain the one who thought the middle class were people making fewer than 6 million a year? Some of you people are your own worst enemy!
Posted by: bea smit | Sep 11, 2008 11:19:00 PM
I's surprised that anyone would think Obama wouldn't raise taxes. He's promised millions more than could ever be raised by taxing the top 5% of wage earners. Where do his followers think the money will come from to implement all those programs.
ANSWER: From every American! No thanks!
***********************
Bush gives a $1 billion unguaranteed loan to
Georgia. Who will end up paying for that one!
Posted by: spacerook1 | Sep 11, 2008 11:36:04 PM
Posted by: Barbara: If you will remember 2 years ago thing were much better than today.No high gas and food prices, etc.
*****
Where were you living back then? Disneyworld?
Gas prices started their increases in 2005!
Food Prices are directly related to several factors:
Transportation, Inflation and Bush's favorite
pastime- procrastination!
************
Posted by: Barbara, When the Dems. took over they really messed everything up.
How can you make a house hit by a hurricane
any worse
Posted by: Barbara, This was done to try to put
Obama in the White House. The Dems believe that
the American prople are stupid. Are We?
Some of you were, for 8 years....You might be
an exception though, because of your statement
showing compassion for handicapped people.
Posted by: spacerook1 | Sep 12, 2008 12:00:55 AM
Nothing will be accomplished unless the party power is the same in all three branches of government. Nothing has happened the last 2 years because Bush's veto pen has been over-active. Whether it's republican or democratic power - CHANGE will not happen unless this power shift transpires.
Posted by: Bev H | Sep 12, 2008 12:34:39 AM
One more thing - it takes a certain measure of "corrupt" in order to even want to be associated with politics. Each party has defined what their view of righteousness is. There are falicies and aspects of truth to both viewpoints. BOTH camps are guilty of stretching facts, so neither of these candidates or their parties can wave a moral wand from their ivory tower.
Folks: Never allow yourselves to become so unbelievably arrogant that you feel one party has all of the answers. Republicans are known for being bereft of social compassion - and Democrats are typically known for fiscal irresponsibility (which the Republicans are quickly taking over). My husband and I have chosen the Independent route - but we know that a candidate from this party will not be elected in our lifetime. It's sad because the two primary political parties in power alienate the citizens of this country from each other; even sadder - that we allow them to do it.
Posted by: Bev H | Sep 12, 2008 12:44:03 AM
Democracy under Obama, I get it: I can choose to have an abortion, I can choose to be gay and have rights, but I can’t choose to keep my hard earned money. Thanks, but no thanks I will vote for McCain/Palin.
Posted by: Anne Marchiondo | Sep 12, 2008 2:43:15 AM
McCain/Palin we would be better off if elected. Government screws uo our lives..and can give many examples. Raising taxes more, ill will have to lay-off more employee's and makes me go invest in another county. Do you people not get it? The more we tax the rich, more they take there rich's and move them away from U.S.. Then the poor get even more less money. Liberals get your math right, from What I have seen in these posts, I would not want to use your calculations or calculator to run my buisness.
Posted by: godblessya | Sep 12, 2008 9:00:09 AM
McCain's tax cut will mean that his rich top 5% will get to buy one more car to park in their 4-car garage and the middle class might get to take the family to the movies. But Obama's tax CARE would be enough for a middle class parent such as myself would be able to pay college tuition for my child, and the rich might have to settle for a $218000.00 outfit unstead of a $318000.00 outfit.
Posted by: chris | Sep 12, 2008 11:15:37 AM
Well, One thing to note is how McCain "sold out" just to be president. Previously he was against tax cuts (he fought Bush over it) And He took no stand on the pro-life thing. Here in Arizona we know what he used to be about however now he'll say anything his party tells him to. What a sellout.
Posted by: Jan | Sep 12, 2008 12:32:49 PM
To all the people who do NOT understand taxes, here a few basics-
1.) The tiers system of taxes are NOT flat rates for certain levels of income, they are GRADUATED.
Example (not the current tax rates):
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI for short, I'll get to that shortly) up to $10,000 is taxed at 10%, AGI from $10,001 to about $35,000 are taxed at 15%, AGI from $35,001 to $70,000 is taxed at 25%.
If have an AGI of $35,000, then you pay $4750 in taxes ($10,000*10% + ($35,000-$10,000)*15%= $1,000 + $3,750 = $4750).
If the taxes were a flat rate, then the person making 35,000 would pay $5,250 ($35,000*15%= $5,250).
2.) AGI is your income less any adjustments, such as your personal exemption and exemption for any dependents that you have (like children or parents that you provide most of their care.) There also tax credit for things such as caring for children. There is also your standard deduction.
So even if you make, say $250,000 in a year, your AGI, after all deductions, could be $200,000. (Though, instead of a standard deduction, you can opt for an itemized deduction, which are ungodly more complicated and you normally have an accountant take care of those for you.)
3.)Tax ranges are different depending on if you are single, married or head of a household. A single person who has an AGI of $250,000 will pay more than a married couple who have an AGI of $250,000. The assumption is that the married family are both bringing money and that should be factored into their tax range rate.
In short- taxes suck. ^o^
Honestly, an increases in taxed for the $250,000+ bracket does not mean that a person who make $260,000 will see their taxes increase thousands of dollars, a few hundred, maybe.
Posted by: Calis | Sep 12, 2008 1:26:00 PM
my brother-in-law makes tens of millions a year and he told me and showed me that after all his dedcutions on his taxes he pays less then $500,000 a year in taxes. he makes 20 millon a year. taht is what is not fair he could pay 2 million and not even feel it. but republicans dont want the rich to pay anty taxes why the working class keeps on giveing up for the rich.
Posted by: tom | Sep 12, 2008 1:37:28 PM
I'm an informed voter who will do her best to ensure the future improves - therefore I'm voting for the Obama/Biden ticket.
Posted by: Citizen Voter | Sep 12, 2008 2:17:10 PM
I am voting for Obama because it is definately time for a change. I am sick and tired of the lies. If you are going to discuss any of the issues at hand make sure you have your facts straight.
Thank you
Posted by: Mishka9561 | Sep 12, 2008 5:05:49 PM
A fact that is never mentioned when stating that Obama would raise taxes only on the top 5% of incomes is that the top 5% already pay 40% of the collected income taxes while the bottom 50% of earners pay virtually nothing while they disproportionately receive most of the government handouts. WHAT is fair about that?
Posted by: jafemu | Sep 12, 2008 6:56:11 PM
Post a comment
