Linda McMahon is asking the public to vote for her based in part on her "plan" to cut middle class taxes and save the average family in Connecticut $6,000 per year. Yet her math is flawed, her definition of "middle class" represents nearly twice the income of the median Connecticut household, and her "plan" doesn't save the average Connecticut family one cent. Here's the extent of McMahon's naive and misleading "plan", in a nutshell: Cut the current 25% federal tax bracket to 15%.
Any sixth-grader can come up with the simple idea of cutting tax rates. The tougher questions - the effect on the federal deficit of lost revenue; the cost to the taxpayer, and particularly the middle class taxpayer, in terms of lost services; the probability that a junior senator in a party averse to compromise could actually implement such a drastic tax cut at the federal level, etc. - are ignored, ostensibly because they require some thought.
Furthermore, McMahon bases her projected savings on a family of four making $125,000 per year and calls it a "middle class" tax cut. Yet the median household income in Connecticut is just $67,740, according to the latest Census numbers, and a household income of $125,000 is somewhere around the top 13% nationally. This is middle class? Most importantly, the 25% tax bracket - the very tax bracket McMahon proposes to cut - is projected to be between $70,700 and $142,700 for married couples filing jointly. As the lower bound of this tax bracket is already higher than the median household income in Connecticut, the average family would in fact save exactly nothing under McMahon's "plan".
Lastly, the "plan" demonstrates that McMahon's positions are either poorly thought out or - worse - deliberately misleading. To illustrate this, let's accept her out-of-touch assumption that $125,000 is middle class and test the accuracy of the supposed $6,000 in savings for such a hypothetical family of four. Assuming the parents are married and filing taxes jointly, they would benefit from two basic deductions on their federal return: Connecticut state income taxes (about $5,975 for this hypothetical family) and the standard federal deduction (projected to be $11,900 in 2012 for married filing jointly). Ignoring all other deductions, that leaves our family with federal taxable income of $107,125. The portion of their income currently subject to the 25% tax rate would be the amount above $70,700; do the math at 15% instead, and the total savings add up $3,642, not $6,000. Any further deductions (such as mortgage interest, real estate and automobile taxes, IRA contributions, etc.) would reduce their projected savings even further.
To summarize, the cornerstone of Linda McMahon's campaign is a naively simplistic tax "plan" that won't save the average Connecticut family one penny; she is basing her heavily promoted "plan" on highly misleading assumptions; and either McMahon doesn't understand the most basic aspects of the tax code, or else she is incapable of performing basic math.
This is who we want to represent us in Washington?
Many independent voters are disgusted with Congress and the White House and have been for the last 2 generations, especially. Chris Shays will bring Congressional experience to the table and will be more effective than Linda McMahon. He, too, has beliefs that many Republicans oppose. People who have met Ms. McMahon and Mr. Shays will have their own impression of who will be a more effective Senator.
Why is it ok for Obama to make the threshold 250k to be called middle class, while you are clearly irritated by Linda McMahon citing 125k? Any comment on that feo? You want to help geoff, linda and barack determine which is the laughable definition of 'middle class?"
About The Tribune-Review The Tribune-Review can be reached via e-mail or at 412-321-6460. By The Associated Press Published: Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 5:34 p.m. Updated: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 WASHINGTON — In a recent speech, President Obama referred to the “middle class” 14 times, defining it as a family that makes up to $250,000 a year.
The author is wrong-as well as obnoxious. But let me ask him a few questions, after reading linda's plan Geoff Is 25-15 the only moving bracket in her plan? Who is the disingenuous one? 2) is there any change in the college education deduction? Or are you trying to subvert that argument, by claiming standard deduction, which would make no sense, if you make 125k ( to start with-- you pay 6125 in ct state tax (deductible) and each dependent represents a 3500 deduction ( hence 3x3500 and 6,125--so your 6th grade math, accusation is weird when you are applying illogical tax calcs.) but then they serve a purpose as you cant include her other middle class deductions..
just to make sure I understand your point--you are effectively saying that when given the choice, we should always elect someone who has served more time in Washington...and therefore, I can comfortably conclude, without knowing your political party, that McCain had your vote over Obama, and Obama will have your vote over Romney? Am I correct? Or are you finding weak arguments that basically dont hold water even in your own voting record? An honest response would be much appreciated.
Ergo, everybody call out, "Roy, Roy, Roy" and either Roy will appear and solve the problem or we will have a 2 week debate with many in Fairfield participating. Roy, Roy, Roy.
You are correct that I voted for McCain and one of the reasons was because I thought he was a better US Senator than Obama AND had more experience. There were other reasons, too. I don’t like Romney or Obama, but I will vote for Romney. In this case, one of the reasons for my leaning toward Romney is because he was able to get things passed in a divided state, Massachusetts. Obama has not been able to get much cooperation from the other side of the aisle. So, I guess where we are is that I look for important differences between candidates and vote accordingly, depending upon how well candidates match up against the issues I feel are important. Sometimes candidates’ positions are the same in many ways. That may mean that one candidate gets picked for a reason that may not look important, but in the voting booth, ties are not allowed. Luca, Congratulations on your cross-examination skills.
I think you are right.... I initiatially read interpreted the new brackets as 25 going to 15 and 15 going to 10...resulting in 25, 15 and 10 but arrived at differently. If I re-read her website, it does appear that the only one changing is the 25-15. In as much as the definition of middle class is not the same as average household income... the idea middle class and average is synonomous is , I think, flawed---you make a good point that the reference point might be closer to 68k if you are talking about the average family- so, I stand corrected--you are right--her ad then is disingenuous and therefore one would not be wrong to question either her integrity or her intelligence.
Im not looking to cross exam. Im looking , often, to explore the real thoughts, values and ideas that make people better for office--and then I determine if they actually believe what they say, or are simply trying to spread a disingenuous message --- If you thiink Shays is better--thats fine..but I am hoping that voters dont decide to vote for people , because they have been in washington longer and know their way around. Im of the opinion, that something needs to change--and finding guys who understand how the game is played ---rather than finding guys (or women) who want to change the game is not a constructive path. But,thanks for clarifying your remarks...
sort of funny that you consider that a 'big ' word. haha...