By ALBERT R. HUNT
. . . In truth, he proposes over $1.3 trillion in tax cuts and less than $500 billion for those other initiatives, not including $196 billion of unspecified reductions in discretionary spending.
[mbs] Yeah, I don't know how the Bushies justify their fractions. Actually the total cost of the tax cut is $1.9 trillion if you include interest payments. This is nearly all of the non-Social Security surplus. That doesn't include their 2% Soc Sec carveout, the cost of which can be found nowhere in their numbers. Talk about whoppers.
HH: It's a bit more complicated for middle-income taxpayers -- that $50,000-a-year family. Simply put, the Bush tax cut is slightly more favorable to those middle-income families who itemize their tax returns, because some do better if they have various expenses for which the vice president offers write-offs. But families who don't itemize do better under the Gore plan because of his more-liberal standard deduction. According to the IRS, two-thirds of families making between $40,000 and $50,000 a year don't itemize.
[mbs] This is a little too kind to Gore. The 'more liberal standard deduction' is worth $210 for those in the 15% bracket. The two-earner deduction for a family in the 50K range could easily outstrip that -- it's ten percent of the lower earner's wages. If the lower earner makes $20K, the tax savings could be 15% of $2K, or $300 bucks. And for the 1/3rd who itemize in this group, the standard deduction is irrelevant. Between the two-earner deduction, the doubled kiddie credit, and the new bottom bracket, typical families around the median headed by a married couple with both spouses working do pretty well w/the Bush plan relative to Gore.
". . . There is a way to fashion tax cuts that principally help working- and middle-class Americans who have not flourished during these good times and still not penalize wealthier Americans. . . . "
Wonder what that could be.
mbs