Capital Commerce

Obama’s Curious Capital Gains Tax Epiphany

By James Pethokoukis

Posted: August 18, 2008

Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama speaks at a town hall meeting in the gymnasium at Robinson Secondary School July 10, 2008 in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

Here's the question: Why did Barack Obama finally go with a smaller-than-expected suggested increase in the capital gains tax rate? Let me present what is, I think, a plausible answer in 10 easy steps (see "Did Obama Blink on Capital Gains Taxes?" for more details):

1) In September 2007, Obama (the primary election version) suggests a possible near doubling of the maximum capital gains tax to 28 percent on the grounds of fairness (big with Dem primary voters) and a need to raise revenue. (Why 28 percent? Because that was the top Bill Clinton cap gains rate inherited from Ronald Reagan.) But Obama leaves himself plenty of wiggle room, providing a range of between 28 percent and 20 percent, the latter being the rate that resulted from the 1997 Clinton-Gingrich reduction and was followed by an economic and stock market boom.

2) The economy (credit crisis, spiking oil prices) worsens, making tax hikes seem riskier.

3) Obama's numerous Wall Street backers accept that tax rates are going up but express unhappiness about the possible 28 percent rate.

4) In an April 2008 debate in Philadelphia, Obama doesn't seem to understand the link between cap gains rates and tax revenues and seems more interested in their equity (fairness) impact rather than their impact on equities (stocks, as well as the economy).

5) Hillary Clinton—whose advisers were quietly suggesting no cap gains tax hike—concedes in early June.

6) The campaign moves to the general, where tax hikes aren't as popular as in the Dem primaries.

7) In a mid-June 2008 interview with CNBC's John Harwood, Obama says he might "possibly defer" his tax increases depending on the state of the economy.

8) The economy worsens (unemployment rises, gas prices soar to record levels).

9) McCain, pushing for no new taxes, stays close in the polls.

10) Obama (the general election version) opts for the lower cap gains rate of 20 percent.

All this being said, sometimes it is the destination rather than the journey. As Larry Kudlow puts it on his blog:

The McCain folks are now slamming Obama's credibility on tax hikes and other issues. They infer that the young Illinois senator is a flip-flopper. Well, that's true. But some flip-flops are better than others. Sen. McCain flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts and drilling. Bravo for that. And if Sen. Obama is flip-flopping toward lower investment taxes, so much the better.

Bush tax cuts expiring will increase taxes on poorer

Get ready for a real shock folks. The Bush tax cuts will increase the taxes on people making 50 or 60 thousand dollars. Obama will tell you that is not a tax increase, but only letting the Bush tax cuts expire. When you need the money for gasoline (that will be rising in price) don't forget to tell yourself that taxes on the poor were not increased.

Howard Greene of AZ @ Mar 05, 2009 21:23:38 PM

Because we all know that being rooted in one specific idea is always a good idea. We can definitely see that no one here has read anything about eastern philosophy or understands the concept that standing your ground is -not- always the right choice.

Cy of PA @ Nov 03, 2008 02:26:59 AM

Is 250k per year for a family of 4-5 now considered rich? Assume both husband and wife make 125k per year and to do so probably have to live in either Boston, NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, Seattle.

A 4 bedroom house in to be at least 500-700k. Tack on high property taxes, sales taxes, living expenses and 250k per year seems more like above average. Throw in saving for retirement and college and it seems like this tax will target some of the most intelligent and productive segments of the workforce. Most households that fall in this category do not live in Flagstaff, Kansas City, Nashville, Des Moines, etc.

Tell someone in NYC earning 250k/year that they are rich when they have to pay state, city, and high sales taxes along with a $1mm 1-2 bedroom condo they are rich and you might get a mazza ball jammed down your throat.

I'd argue 1mm a year isn't even necessarily rich nowadays, but 250k seems ridiculously low when there are plenty of people making double digit millions per year. If Obama came out with a 400k-500k rich level I might agree, but 250k seems to low to lump in with multimillionaires.

David of IL @ Oct 18, 2008 21:06:06 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!