The Tax Plans: Who Wins and Who Loses

There's more to Obama's and McCain's proposals than simply raising or lowering rates.

By Mary Beth Franklin, Senior Editor

From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, November 2008
Text Size T T

Advertisement

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have distinctly different ideas about tax policy, and depending on your income and investments, you could be a winner or loser under their proposed tax plans. But it's hard to figure out who would be helped or hurt just by listening to their campaign ads.

Just ask "Joe the Plumber", the Ohio tradesman who was thrust into the national spotlight after McCain repeatedly referred to him during the final presidential debate as an example of how the average Joe would fare under their competing platforms. It turns out that Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the plumber" of suburban Toledo, Ohio, doesn't make enough money to be adversely affected by Obama's tax proposal that would raise rates only on high-income taxpayers.

Despite their philosophical differences, the nation's ongoing financial crisis has prompted the two candidates to agree on one tax issue: suspending the requirement that seniors over age 70 tap their retirement accounts. While that would allow some investors to avoid selling stocks hammered by the market, it would only help those affluent seniors who can afford to skip their annual required minimum distribution. Seniors who need the money will have to tap their IRAs whether or not they are required to do so. Obama would also exempt from taxation any withdrawals up to the required minimum amount.

Tapping retirement accounts

As Americans grapple with rising consumer prices, falling home values and shrinking 401(k) balances, some are breaking into their retirement nest eggs to make ends meet. In response, both candidates outlined proposals to ease the tax bite of tapping retirement accounts early. Unfortunately, their proposed plans could have serious long-term implications for many workers who are already woefully unprepared for retirement.

McCain recently proposed that savers should be able to withdraw up to $50,000 from their IRAs or 401(k) plans and pay the lowest income tax rate -- 10% -- on those withdrawals in 2008 and 2009. Currently, retirement account withdrawals are taxed at ordinary income tax rates from 10% to 35% and taxpayers younger than 59 ½ pay an additional 10% penalty on early withdrawals. Earlier, Obama suggested that savers be allowed to withdraw 15% of their retirement savings up to maximum $10,000 in 2008 and 2009 without paying a penalty, but still subject to income taxes.

Under current law, workers can borrow up to half of the balance in their 401(k) or similar workplace-based retirement plans up to $50,000 and in some cases, qualify for a hardship withdrawal, subject to taxes and early distribution penalties. You can't borrow from an IRA, but you can take early withdrawals that will be taxed and penalized. Roth IRA contributions (but not earnings) can be withdrawn any time tax-free and penalty free.

Tax plan overview

In general, McCain prefers to extend the current tax rates, due to expire in 2010, and recently revised his position on maintaining the existing low rates on capital gains and dividends. He now suggests that the capital gains rate temporarily be cut in half from 15% to 7.5%, but made no mention of that fact that taxpayers in the two lowest income tax brackets already qualify for a zero capital gains rate through 2010. His tax policy would primarily benefit those with higher incomes, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, in Washington, D.C.

In contrast, Obama's plan would benefit mainly low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers, defined as families with incomes of more than $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals).

Obama proposes a windfall-profits tax on oil companies and would use the revenue to give filers an immediate $1,000 rebate to help cope with higher fuel costs. He would add a refundable tax credit of up to $500 per person ($1,000 per family) to offset payroll taxes on the first $8,100 of wages. He would also exempt seniors with incomes of less than $50,000 from income taxes, create a mortgage-interest credit for homeowners who don't itemize deductions and replace existing college-tuition subsidies with a refundable tax credit.

Both candidates propose to protect middle-income Americans from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to ensure that the rich pay at least some tax. Because the AMT was never indexed to inflation, it now threatens to saddle tens of millions of middle-income Americans with higher taxes. As part of the $700 billion economic rescue plan, Congress approved another one-year patch boosting the AMT exemption amount to keep more than 21 million new middle-class taxpayers from paying the tax in 2008.

On estate taxes -- which at the federal level apply to only a small number of wealthy Americans -- the differences between the two are huge. Obama would maintain the estate-tax exclusion and rate at 2009 levels, while McCain would boost the exclusion and slash the tax rate.

If Obama wins in November, his proposals stand at least a fair chance of passage, particularly should Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate. If McCain wins, he would need to wheel and deal with a Congress likely to be controlled by the Democrats. Regardless of who wins, however, the ongoing federal budget deficit will make it difficult for the next president to fulfill many expensive campaign promises.

McCain vs. Obama: The proposals

Confused by how the proposals of the two candidates for president would affect your tax bill? This comparison, drawn from official documents, lays out their major ideas.

INCOME TAX

McCain: Maintain current tax rates of 10% to 35%.

Obama: Boost top tax rate to 39.6% on joint income more than $250,000.


CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS

McCain: Temporarily reduce the maximum rate from 15% to 7.5%

Obama: Raise maximum to 20%, but only for investors with incomes more than $250,000.


RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS

McCain: Suspend mandatory distributions for those 70 ½ and older. Permit early withdrawals from retirement accounts of up to $50,000 and cut maximum tax on distributions to 10% in 2008 and 2009.

Obama: Suspend mandatory distributions for those 70 ½ and older. Permit taxpayers to withdraw up to $10,000 from retirement accounts penalty-free but still subject to income taxes.

NEW TAX CUTS

McCain: Immediately double the dependency exemption to $7,000 for married couples with incomes less than $50,000; gradually increase it for higher earners.

Obama: $1,000 rebate to offset high energy costs; up to $1,000 credit to offset Social Security taxes for low wage earners; eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000; double college credit to $4,000.


AMT

McCain: Maintain current exemption and index to inflation.

Obama: Maintain current exemption and index to inflation.


ESTATE TAX

McCain: Raise exclusion to $5 million per person; cut rate to 15%.

Obama: Set exclusion at $3.5 million per person; keep rate at 45%.


SOCIAL SECURITY

McCain: No change in taxable wage base.

Obama: Impose added tax on earnings exceeding $250,000.


CORPORATE TAX

McCain: Reduce top rate to 25%; close corporate loopholes.

Obama: Keep top rate at 35%; close corporate loopholes.


For more details on the candidates' tax plans read the Tax Policy Center's longer analysis.



ALSO SEE: Where They Stand on Health Care.

Get Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine for $12. Save 75%!

Discuss

Reader Comments (32)

Posted by: jessica at 10/07/2008 08:50:04 PM

Do Seniors’ Deserve This? While the cost of living has quadrupled, the most negatively affected group in the society is the seniors, who are on fixed income. And some of us who had managed to invest in stocks and lived on interest income during the boom years in the mid to late 1980s have just witnessed the major evaporation of our life saving. We not only lost the interest income but the principle as well....it does not appear that the down slope of our standard of living (will) soon improve. On Sunday, I could not believe listening to statements by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser that if elected, Senator McCain intends to reduce medicare and medicaid spending to offset tax cuts pay for his proposed health plan. He further elaborated by saying that the savings would come from eliminating or reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of care. He will also increase medicare premiums for the wealthier seniors. The more I think about (it), I get very distressed that the ills of this generation are being pushed to its seniors and future generations. It is not fair.

Posted by: Thomas at 10/15/2008 03:14:32 AM

You poor thing. You have had how many years to plan for and to pay for your retirement? Maybe we (all under 70) should all go out and get second or third jobs so you can suck up even more resources; after all, those of us with jobs are not on fixed incomes--our salaries go up every second of every day, and so we are just bathing in money. We are suffering too, but we did not have a period where CD's were paying 12%. Also, (who) puts their savings into the stock market?...

Posted by: Renee at 10/21/2008 11:06:33 PM

I'd like to see a mock tax return for a family making $251,000. What would happen if the family earning less actually makes more under Obama's plan? Also, I do not condone a situation where anyone pays 40 percent of one's earned money to the government. I don't care how much one makes. Why are we adding rules to a complicated bandied tax law instead of simplifying them? And I consider myself a Democrat.

Posted by: Sruly at 10/23/2008 08:58:39 AM

I always try to remember what has been promised in past Presidential "Liefest" before I pass any judgment. The best I can remember is that 99% of all the talk never happens. None of this stuff can pass both houses till every member make the changes THEY want. By then the Bills look like someone else wrote them. I would really focus my concerns on the security issues. We need a very strong person who puts the country first and not their political career. If we don't stop Muslim fanatics now we wont have to worry about the economy, Medicare, or must of anything. We must look at our enemy before we worry about our bank accounts...

Posted by: John at 10/23/2008 09:39:26 AM

I don't think this article is telling the whole story. It needs to be disclosed that Obama plans on letting the Bush tax cuts expire while McCain is pushing to keep them. So this in effect automatically impacts those who make well under $200k (single)/$250k (joint). Also, it is mentioned nowhere that obama's credits are "refundable", which means that they will be given to those who don't even pay taxes. This article...leads the reader to believe that anyone making below $200k will benefit when in fact people making more are still losing as the wealth is being passed downward.

Posted by: Michael at 10/23/2008 10:20:34 AM

FLAT TAX We all pay the same share on our personal income (no pernalty for being single and not making babies). Think how fair and how much more the government would receive if we were all paying equally without the exaggerated decuctions. I will pay 10 - 20% without crying (this will still be less then what I pay at this time (less deductions).

Posted by: Whatevs at 10/23/2008 10:22:34 AM

Renee, A family making $251,000 will never pay less tax than a family making $250,000 under Obama's plan, because the higher tax rate will apply only to that portion of income *above* $250,000. Thus, both families would pay the exact tax rate on the first $250,000, and the family making an extra $1000 would pay 39.6% on that last $1000.

Posted by: aleck at 10/23/2008 10:46:16 AM

Giving breaks on retirement withdrawal is a disaster. People can't just stop spending the money they don't have. Stop looking for easy cash, aka home equity loans, credit cards, retirement accounts, and start living within your means. There is no constitutional right guaranteeing that standards of living always go up. They go down at times.. Deal with it and let's not have "I DESERVE THIS" argument.

Posted by: JVilla at 10/23/2008 10:57:06 AM

I think simplifying the tax code is something many/most people can agree on, regardless of politics. Also, agree that you shouldn't be puting your retirement savings (while retired) in the stock market or ONLY put (in) an amount that you can live without.

Posted by: scott at 10/23/2008 11:03:03 AM

I agree with Renee, why don't both parties stop throwing our money away and recognize their responsibilty to spend it wisely. Increased taxation is not an answer to stimulating the economy or balancing their misguided and misrepresented budget.There is too much fraud and waste going out to entitlement programs with recipients benefiting that aren't even American citizen's.

Posted by: Walt at 10/23/2008 11:19:30 AM

Mark my words, all of you starry-eyed Obama zombies who chant change, change but do not even know what change he's talking about? If you think the economy is bad now, after he is elected the unemployment rate will be like our european socialist friends 10% or higher. It doesn't work taxing the successful people to give to the poor. Just look back to the Jimmy Carter administration gas lines, interest rates and 14% unemployment at 9%. If that is what you want Obama's your man to be president of the United Socialist States.

Posted by: Dave at 10/23/2008 12:06:22 PM

Walt, you are right on. I don't know why more people can't see it.

Posted by: John at 10/23/2008 12:30:50 PM

Gee Walt, didn't you read the above article? It points out some of the change there. Have you had an opportunity to listen to the debates and read the commentaries of others? Many of the "changes" have been discussed at length. I find it incredible that so many maintain an ignorant loyalty to a "side" or party without regard to recent history. Incredible.

Posted by: Cal at 10/23/2008 12:43:19 PM

I'm all for simplifying the tax code, but make no mistakes about it - the reason it's complicated is to encourage people and corporations to report income more accurately because they can then write that off. Otherwise, they'll find creative ways to under-report. So easier said than done. I'm a hyper logical person. The problem happening to our country is that how are we going to be paying off the national debt if the government keeps on borrowing? To me, it's not even about trickle up or trickle down politics anymore. We need to tackle government spending AND raise tax revenues for the numbers to add up.

Posted by: George at 10/23/2008 12:48:57 PM

According to Factcheck.org, Walt's claim that home sales would be taxable under Obama is absolutely false...Here's the truth. Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales...

Posted by: JD at 10/23/2008 01:51:53 PM

Once upon a time, tax discussion was philosophical. What is fair? Now it's about how much money we can wring out. Nobody can explain why the magic $250K/year threshold merits such stiff tax penalties. What makes those last few dollars so much more deserving of high taxes than the first few? Are the people earning that money magically evil because they crossed the threshold? We certainly can't argue that the government helped them earn that money more than it helped a $40K person. There is no argument anymore. This isn't about what's fair, it's about people voting themselves other peoples' money! This system is unsustainable. The Constitution exists to prevent tyranny of the majority. Maybe it needs some provisions to stop economic tyranny.

Posted by: Frank at 10/23/2008 01:57:27 PM

Sruly is right. Most candidate proposals don't get enacted because nobody is elected dictator in these United States. However, Obama could be the first president in generations to have a filibuster-proof majority in both houses of congress backing him. This would make him the most powerful president of our time and actually allow him to push through most of his proposals. That's why we need to scrutinize him more than most have. I don't think I want to give anyone that kind of power at a time like this. Everyone wants to overreact to changing winds right now. We need to force our government to slow down.

Posted by: Hawkston at 10/23/2008 02:17:20 PM

Hmnnn... I don't see where 95% of Americans will be paying less in taxes on the Obama Plan. Unless, his plan is planning on all of us paying the higher tax rates when the Bush tax cuts expire, then renewing the cuts, thereby giving us all 'a cut in taxes'....(0r) he's planning on shorting the government revenues from retirement savings that were pre-tax. With the largest group ever about to retire and to start pulling that money out (what's left anyways) he's making sure that programs he's been talking about starting will have no funding and therefore he won't have to fulfill campaign promises. McCain's plan isn't great, but it makes more tax sense for those of us who will be paying taxes. And by the way, there are a good number of us who will be paying capital gains this tax year - those who are long on stock and use options to boost returns (not shorts or naked options) and those of us who have played the dividend game for years and have a nice income from them. We played by the rules, we supported the economy and business by not betting on failures and holding our stock and we were and continue to be rewarded. So if the greedy people are getting bailed out, give us a break too.

Posted by: Eyecare at 10/23/2008 02:42:46 PM

Jimmy Carter was the cause of gas lines? Isn't this stretching the facts a little? VAT (value added tax), a flat tax that is added to everything in Germany, is around 19%. Since it's already included on the price tag you don't even think about it. Of course there are separate taxes on other "luxur"y items such as the number of TVs you have in your house, the number and type of cars you drive, etc. Still their economy seems to do ok and they have a socialized but very robust health care system. Maybe their political system doesn't lend itself to as much corruption from special interests as our does so not as much of our taxpayer money is wasted on porkbarrel spending.

Posted by: Rodger Mitchell at 10/23/2008 03:00:40 PM

To stimulate the economy, eliminate FICA. Fund Social Security and Medicare the way we fund the military...serious, national problem....the government should pay for SS and Medicare as it pays for other federal agencies, by folding them into the general fund.

Posted by: Chad at 10/23/2008 03:14:04 PM

There is only a brief mention of the increase in the Social Security rate that Obama is proposing. That is potentially the most devastating tax and it will not just impact high earners. Most people in America are employed by small business and most of them are unincorporated. So the owner of a small business with say $500,000 in revenue and 5 employees averaging $30,000 per year is going to have the impact of the additional Social Security tax when the cap is lifted. That additional tax will most likely be compensated for by the business reducing employee head count. The alternative for a small business in this scenario is that they could incorporate but then the small business owner would be getting a double tax (corporate and personal).

Posted by: Mike Weaver at 10/23/2008 03:25:44 PM

I am surprised by that a reputable publication such as Kiplinger's would maintain the party line regarding Obama's salary threshold. Reports (from the Tax Policy Center) show his plan is more costly at the 111K level than the McCain plan...

Posted by: chaztv at 10/23/2008 03:41:50 PM

Hawkston, regarding 95% of Americans paying less in income taxes, it's really quite simple, 95% of us make less than $250,000 Gross Adjusted Income per year....

Posted by: J at 10/23/2008 03:46:58 PM

Cut NASA spending for 5 years and we'd be in great shape!

Posted by: Theodore F Kuchta at 10/23/2008 06:41:25 PM

Why no mention that (Obama) will do away with the Bush tax cuts by allowing them to expire. Could be a shock for all taxpayers!!

Posted by: JD at 10/23/2008 06:49:34 PM

chaztv, you assume that everyone making under $250,000/year will get a (better) tax cut under Obama. This is impossible, since 40% of Americans (all in that 90%, obviously) don't pay any income tax. Obama will cause the amount by which their deductions exceed their tax bill to increase, but that won't change their finances one bit. He's taking credit for a cut that never happens. Besides that, not everyone under $250K is better off under Obama than McCain. The tax code and their proposals are complex enough that a lot of factors come into play for individuals. Obama lays out a few templates where he wins, and takes credit for all the rest by (flawed) extension.

Posted by: The Real J at 10/24/2008 02:09:05 AM

"POSTED BY: J (October 23, 2008 03:46 PM) Cut NASA spending for 5 years and we'd be in great shape!" ...The budget for NASA in 2008 was 17 trillion, which is barely a half of a percent of the 2.4 trillion dollar budget! Thats barely a drop in the bucket. There was 18 billion dollars in earmarks, which is more than NASA's budget. So if you're going to start anywhere start there! But people are still uneducated if they think that simply cutting out 18 billion dollars from our budget is going to solve the problem. Its going to take A LOT more than that!

Posted by: DJ at 10/24/2008 09:36:46 AM

Wow! If we cut NASA's $20 billion yearly budget, that would solve all our problems! That's $100 billion over 5 years! That will certainly make all the difference we need to solve our country's $10 TRILLION debt... We're adding several TRILLION dollars to our national debt to bail out Wall Street and people who made bad mortgage decisions, and those of us who made prudent mortgage decisions are going to be stuck PAYING for it! But cutting NASA's budget will help... how?

Posted by: Martin Eden at 10/24/2008 10:47:32 AM

Is it true that Obama's intention, if elected, is to let all Bush-era tax rate cuts sunset/expire after 2010? If this occurs, won't everyone earning taxable income above about $40K AGI see a tax INCREASE beginning in 2011?

Posted by: JD at 10/24/2008 01:06:49 PM

Martin Eden, one of Bush's cuts was the creation of the 10% bracket at the bottom, so if Obama truly killed all of Bush's cuts then everyone would lose, not just those making $40K+. Practically speaking, Obama will find it politically impossible to let that cut expire. We are in an era where every tax cut for the poor and every tax hike for the rich is de-facto permanent, since Congress will never repeal either one in this climate.

Posted by: Mary Beth Franklin at 10/27/2008 03:21:42 PM

Hi all. I'm the author of the above tax article. Thank you for all your passionate comments. FYI. Both candidates would retain the current tax brackets--10,15,25, 28,33 and 35 that are due to expire in 2010. Plus, Obama would reinstate the old 39.6% rate on high-income taxpayers. He would also institute a refundable income tax credit for the working poor to offset the FICA payroll tax, which is the biggest tax bite for many Americans. (The current tax code has several refundable tax credits). I encourage you all to read the excellent detailed analysis at the Tax Policy Institute website. And remember. These are just proposals. It is up to Congress to write and pass tax legislation.

Posted by: Mary Beth Franklin at 10/28/2008 08:42:15 AM

Martin and JD: See my comments below. Both candidates would continue the current tax rates--including the lowest 10% bracket--beyond the 2010 sunset date. In addition, Obama would reinstate the old top rate of 39.6%.

Today's Video More Videos >>

Turning Allowances Into Savings

E-mail Alerts: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox:

Advertisement