The Economist's call on presidential candidates' economic plans
Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 2:23AM THE ECONOMIST'S POLL OF ECONOMISTS: "Examining the candidates: In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates' economic plans," The Economist, 4 October 2008.
REGULATION AND TRADE: "Changing the rules: The candidates offer divergent responses to the credit crunch and differ sharply over free trade," The Economist, 4 October 2008.
Very ouch, as Austin Powers used to say.
The Economist polls all these economists about McCain and Obama and their economic plans. 70 percent say McCain's plan will be "very bad" or "bad" and almost 50% says Obama's plan will be "very good" or "good."
Who picks the better economic team? 80% for Obama, and about 15% for McCain. Similar proportions for "who has the better grasp of economics" and "for whom would you rather work?"
Most interesting, and explaining some of the skew: a bit over 40% say they're Dems and a bit over 40% say their independent, while only about 10 percent say they're Republican. Those numbers explain why Obama scores so high, but not why McCain scores so low.
As with the election, Obama captures more of the independents.
Can it be that hard for the Economist to find GOP economists? Don't they exist anymore or has 8 years of Bush-Cheney driven them from the ranks?
On the question of future regulation: a wash. About one-third like each and one-third seem to like neither.
But the killer chart to me comes on page 7 of the special report, regarding tax plans much discussed in the debates:
• Under Obama, the top 1% (including me) pay more taxes and the lowest 20% pay less (meaning the top 1% have less after-tax income and the bottom 20% have more); about an 8% loss of income for richest and a 5-6% gain for lowest
• Under McCain, the top 1% pay less taxes (about 2%) and the bottom 20% pay about the same (virtually no change)
Reader Comments (9)
As for whether GOP economists exist anymore, it's tough to say. More and more it seems that Republicans (at least those in power) have become 1980s Democrats and Democrats are quickly approaching 1960s Socialists. "We're from the government, we're here to help" is the mantra of both parties, regardless.
The larger issue is with a progressive tax system; it’s simply unfair and makes paying taxes over complicated. If McCain had run on simplifying taxes rather than simply cutting taxes he would be getting more traction on the issue.
Economists (Theorists) endorse Obama. Business people (Doers) endorse McCain. Self projection maybe?
What I consider the most important thing I have learned from Dr. Barnett is that I now look at news like this and think, "We won." This kind of interconnectivity is a reason for hope that we can keep building a better world, instead of destroying ourselves...
I don't want to live in a world where the well-off are constantly shrugging their collective duties by skimping on their taxes. If you can make that money, be grateful. If they tax you, then go out and make some more.
I do.
It's time
It is deductions that make paying taxes complicated. Progressive tax brackets are trivial to deal with.
But the larger issue is fairness. While you may think it is conceptually unfair, you are ignoring the reality that we make a distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary income. Food or shelter or children are not conceptual. People with large discretionary incomes owe that in part to their own hard work, but they also owe it in part to their good fortune of living in a country like the US.
I make a lot less than $150 thousand/year, I have three children and a house- I don’t want your money and I don’t want you to have to pay it to a government that wastes money on programs with dubious results. I’ll buy my own healthcare and educate my own children, I don’t need the government for that. This is the way that my family, who have been farmers and factory worker for generations, have taught me that life is supposed to be. You work hard take care of yourself and help those that are less fortunate. Charity is how the better off help those that have less, not government programs.
You forgot the main reason people are rich -- because their parents are rich. You mention the hard work, and then insinuate that everyone might get lucky. It is self deception to avoid the reality of income disparity.
"But the reality is if everyone paid let’s say 20% in taxes then the rich would still pay more money. Simple math, 20% of $40 thousand is less than 20% of $1 million.
You make my point for me. Taking $8k from someone who earns $40k means you are reducing food and shelter. Taking $400k from someone who earns $1m means you are reducing luxuries.
"I have three children and a house- I don’t want your money and I don’t want you to have to pay it to a government that wastes money on programs with dubious results. "
I have three children as well. And I am apparently much more thankful that they live in the US, rather than Zimbabwe or Peru or Yemen, that you apparently are. I am proud to pay for the world's greatest military to protect us, and for the courts and ports and all the infrastructure that allows the engine of America to run. You actually take as much on local, state and federal money for that quality of life as I do (more if you are a farmer). You deceive yourself that you could get along without it. Again you don't seem to acknowledge or appreciate how blessed we are.
As for dubious results, this is political dogma most recently going back to the Reagan years. If you honestly think government is any more screwed up than the private sector then you have blinders on. Human endeavors are fallible. The private sector takes our money in the form of profits and investments and produces "dubious results" just as frequently than government does. It is delusion to think otherwise.