Written by The Heritage Foundation
For all their similarities, the two plans have important distinctions. The most important is that McCain's tax proposals emphasize job creation and raising wages. Obama's tax proposals exemplify his view that redistributing income among citizens is more important than increasing their earnings and creating jobs. This view is apparent in his proposal to raise income taxes dramatically on individuals and small businesses earning more than $250,000.
Defending his plan in Toledo, Ohio, on Sunday, Obama said, "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Unfortunately, the facts do not back up Obama's claim. Using tax models and tax information from other sources as inputs into Global Insight's U.S. Macroeconomic Model, Heritage's Center for Data Analysis just released a study estimating the side-by-side economic effects of the two plans. According to CDA, by 2018 the economy would be more than $320 billion larger (after inflation), and average household income would be more than $2,600 greater under the McCain plan than under the Obama plan.
Americans understand that redistributing income among citizens impedes income growth and job creation. The same "Joe the Plumber" who questioned Obama in Toledo on Sunday, and was mentioned again in last night's debate, told The New York Times:
[Obama's] answer actually scared me even more. He said he wants to distribute wealth. And I mean, I'm not trying to make statements here, but, I mean, that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. You know, I work for that. You know, it's my discretion who I want to give my money to; it's not for the government decide that I make a little too much and so I need to share it with other people. That's not the American Dream.