Showing posts with label Plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Plans. Show all posts

Thursday, 31 October 2013

Norway's Arctic idyll shivers at oil plans

A fishing boat enters the harbour at the Arctic port of Svolvaer in northern Norway March 4, 2013. REUTERS/Alister Doyle

A fishing boat enters the harbour at the Arctic port of Svolvaer in northern Norway March 4, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Alister Doyle

By Alister Doyle and Balazs Koranyi

SVOLVAER, Norway | Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:06am EDT

SVOLVAER, Norway (Reuters) - Oil companies seeking new Arctic areas for exploration face a battle with environmentalists, fishermen and hotel owners over Norwegian islands where jagged snow-capped peaks rise sheer from the sea.

With oil production falling to a 25-year low this year and the state depending on oil revenues, Norway's ruling Labour Party is warming to drilling in Lofoten's pristine waters, setting up the issue as the year's biggest political fight ahead of elections in September.

"We've already got the winning lottery ticket by living in Norway. We shouldn't want to be even richer," said Erling Santi, a fisherman in Svolvaer, Lofoten's main town.

"Oil drilling could drive the fish away," said Santi who is also the managing director of Saga Fish, a cod packing plant.

Norway is one of the world's most prosperous nations with per capital GDP in excess of $100,000 but the fortunes of remote Lofoten, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles) north of Oslo, have been mixed. Unemployment remains above the national average and its young leave the area in search of jobs.

Lofoten has been off limits for exploration since Norway first struck oil in 1969, reflecting fears about nature in a scenic Arctic region that is a spawning ground for the world's richest cod stocks and home to sea eagles and puffins.

BP Plc's (BP.L) Gulf of Mexico spill in 2010, the worst offshore spill in U.S. history, may have added to scepticism.

After Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg came down in favour of studying drilling last month, Norway's top three parties on left and right are now open to the idea, pitting them against smaller parties and many of Lofoten's own residents.

The fight will also be a test for how the industry and politics handle the move northward, with sights firmly set on the high Arctic, including the frozen Svalbard archipelago.

VIKINGS

Backers say oil and gas finds are getting scarcer and that new technology means the risks of accidents are low enough to explore waters off Lofoten and the neighbouring Vesteraalen islands where cod has been king since Viking days.

"We need Lofoten but most of all, Lofoten needs the oil industry," said Knut Saeberg, chief financial officer CFO.L of North Energy (NORTH.OL), which is based in Alta higher in the Arctic. He said Lofoten needed jobs to counter a drift away.

Eivind Holst, the Conservative mayor of the Svolvaer region where the crest of arms depicts a large cod, said he was in principle in favour of oil and gas, partly as a source of jobs.

Lofoten's population has fallen to 24,000 people from above 30,000 in the early 20th century, with many moving to cities.

"There isn't necessarily a contradiction between running an industry and enjoying nature. It just has to be done carefully," he said. "Tourists don't come to Lofoten to see oil platforms in the midnight sun."

A ban on seismic surveys in the cod spawning season early each year and use of sub-sea installations were among measures that would protect fish stocks and tourism if the planned assessment gave a green light, he said.

A government report suggested that oil and gas in Lofoten could create 400 to 1,100 new jobs to the northwestern region. Hammerfest to the north has boomed as the landing area for gas from Statoil's (STL.OL) Snoehvit field, he noted.

"The longer you wait, the fewer benefits you get," he said. "And there hasn't been an accident like the Gulf of Mexico here - knock on wood." He rapped his knuckles on a wooden table for good luck.

OIL OUTPUT HALVED

Oil output by Norway, the world's number seven exporter, fell to 1.5 million barrels per day in January and even a string of big finds, set to come online in the second half of the decade, will only halt the rate of decline.

"The industry needs access to new areas on a regular basis to sustain activities," said Einar Gjelsvik, chief executive of Noreco, an oil producer. (NOR.OL)

Lofoten could hold 8 percent of Norway's undiscovered oil and gas resources, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate says.

It says that seismic tests have identified 50 prospects off Lofoten that could hold recoverable reserves or around 1.27 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

"We are developing new technology to reduce the risk," said Leif Borge, CFO of Aker Solutions (AKSO.OL). "Down the road, it's probably an important area."

Norway's worst oil spills were the Ekofisk Bravo blowout in the North Sea in 1977 that spilt 80,000 barrels and a spill of 27,500 barrels at the Statfjord field.

"You can never be relaxed about safety but you can see that Norway's controls are so much better than the Gulf of Mexico," said Geoff Turbott, CFO at Lundin Petroleum (LUPE.ST). "Opening the area is many years away and even from then, the first drilling is 3-4 years away."

An opinion poll by InFact in February showed that 49 percent of almost 1,100 people in Nordland county, which includes Lofoten, opposed oil and gas production off the islands with 34 percent in favour and others undecided.

It also showed that 44 percent favoured an environmental impact assessment with 43 percent opposed. Lofoten's people will be consulted but will not decide on oil and gas.

Lofoten has Arctic winter darkness that complicates drilling but the warm Gulf Stream current keeps it ice free. It is warmer than where the Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground off Alaska in 1989, even though it is further north.

Less chilly waters mean any oil would break down faster. "The problems for drilling here are the fish, the birds and the coastline," said Truls Gulowsen, head of Greenpeace Norway. "It's not typical of the Arctic."

The relative warmth makes Norway an exception for Arctic drilling - Shell has abandoned drilling off Alaska for this year after a string of setbacks in 2012.

Tourism operators fear that oil and gas could undermine business. "The oil can wait. We have had some big oil finds in recent years," said Ola Skjeseth, the biggest local hotel manager who runs 500 beds around Lofoten.

He said he was especially opposed to any oil or gas terminal on the islands, saying it would contradict publicly funded advertising campaigns that call Lofoten "the world's most beautiful coast" with white beaches and saw-tooth mountains.

And in winter, more tourists are starting to visit, hoping to see the northern lights, particles from the sun that can produce a show of green, pink and violet across the night sky.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's decision to favour an environmental impact study aligns Labour with the opposition right-wing Conservatives and the Progress Party. That makes a study likely after the September election, unless the balance of power falls to a small party opposed to drilling.

Mayor Holst said that a melt of Arctic sea ice caused by global warming was a bigger environmental threat than oil and gas because it raising risks of shipwrecks, including tankers, on a likely new route between the Pacific and the Atlantic.

That would be a turnaround for Lofoten, which has sometimes benefited from shipwrecks. Some old buildings in Svolvaer are built with timber washed from 19th century Russian wrecks - cold means trees don't grow big and thick enough on the islands.

(Editing by William Hardy)


View the original article here

BlackBerry plans security feature for Android, iPhone

A BlackBerry salesperson displays a BlackBerry Z10 during the launch of the BlackBerry 10 smartphone in Mumbai February 25, 2013. REUTERS/Vivek Prakash

A BlackBerry salesperson displays a BlackBerry Z10 during the launch of the BlackBerry 10 smartphone in Mumbai February 25, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Vivek Prakash

By Euan Rocha

TORONTO | Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:48am EDT

TORONTO (Reuters) - BlackBerry will offer technology to separate and make secure both work and personal data on mobile devices powered by Google Inc's Android platform and by Apple Inc's iOS operating system, the company said on Thursday.

The new feature could help BlackBerry sell high-margin services to enterprise clients even if many, or all, of their workers are using smartphones made by BlackBerry's competitors. That may be crucial for the company as it has lost a vast amount of market share to the iPhone and to Android devices, such as Samsung Electronics Co's (005930.KS) Galaxy line.

Jefferies analyst Peter Misek said he expects BlackBerry's device management software to gain traction this year, and boost revenue next year.

"Supporting devices with the best, most secure, and easiest-to-use mobile solution should enable RIM to transform into what we believe is an attractive model," he said in a note to clients.

The offering could help BlackBerry shore up its profitable services business. BlackBerry's shares plunged in December after it said it would change the way it charges for services, cutting fees for customers that do not need advanced security and other enhanced features.

The new Secure Work Space feature will be available before the end of June, and will be managed through BlackBerry Enterprise Service 10, the platform that allows BlackBerry's corporate and government clients to handle devices using different operating systems on their networks.

BlackBerry said the feature fences off corporate email, calendar, contacts, tasks, memos, web browsing and document editing from personal apps and content, which could be less secure.

BALANCING ACT

In a bid to regain market share and return to profit, BlackBerry introduced a new line of smartphones powered by its BlackBerry 10 operating system earlier this year.

The touch screen version, dubbed the Z10, is on sale in more than 20 countries, while a device called the Q10, with a physical keyboard, will be available in April.

The new devices have a feature called Balance, which keeps corporate and personal data separate. It allows information technology departments to manage the corporate content on a device, while ensuring privacy for users, who can store and use personal apps and content on the same phone without corporate oversight.

With Secure Work Space, "we're extending as many of these (Balance) features as possible to other platforms," David Smith, BlackBerry's head of mobile enterprise computing, said in a statement.

BlackBerry's move comes as Samsung, whose Galaxy devices have gained great popularity, attempts to make itself a more viable option for business customers with security features such as Samsung Knox and SAFE, or Samsung for Enterprise.

BlackBerry said Secure Work Space means clients would not need to configure and manage expensive virtual private network VPN.L infrastructure in order to give workers' devices access to data and applications that reside behind corporate firewalls.

"Secure Work Space also offers the same end-to-end encryption for data in transit as we have offered on BlackBerry for many years, so there is no need for a VPN," Peter Devenyi, head of enterprise software, said in an interview.

SELLING SERVICES

The new feature could also help stem declines in BlackBerry's service revenue. That business has long been a cash cow for BlackBerry because of the large clients that pay to use its extensive network and security offerings.

However, the company has been under pressure to reduce its infrastructure access fees, and opted to do so during the transition to BlackBerry 10. Due to the changes, BlackBerry's service revenue is expected to decline over the course of this year.

Giving its large array of corporate clients the ability to manage BlackBerry devices, along with Android smartphones and iPhones on their networks might encourage both corporate and government clients to continue to pay for and use BlackBerry's device management services.

BlackBerry plans to report quarterly results on March 28.

Last week, Chief Executive Thorsten Heins said sales of the Z10 had surpassed BlackBerry's expectations in emerging markets such as India, where cheaper entry-level phones are typically popular.

On Wednesday, the company said it had received an order for 1 million BlackBerry 10 smartphones - the largest order it has ever had from a single customer - and its shares jumped.

BlackBerry's volatile stock closed up 8.2 percent at $15.65 on the Nasdaq on Wednesday, while its Toronto-listed shares rose by a similar margin to C$16.04.

The shares pared gains on Thursday, falling 2.3 percent to $15.29 in late morning trading on the Nasdaq. In Toronto, its shares were 2 percent lower at C$15.72. (Reporting by Euan Rocha and Allison Martell; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe, Lisa Von Ahn and Peter Galloway)


View the original article here

Tuesday, 16 July 2013

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary

library An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive SummaryRoberton Williams, Howard Gleckman

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to an updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.8 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Under current law, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would expire in 2010 and the Alternative Minimum Tax would remain in full force.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to an updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.

Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.8 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Under current law, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would expire in 2010 and the Alternative Minimum Tax would remain in full force.

Both candidates prefer to compare their plans to the “current policy” baseline, which would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and indefinitely extend an indexed AMT “patch.” Against that baseline, Obama would raise revenues by about $800 billion over the decade, while McCain would lose $600 billion. But choice of baseline doesn’t change how the proposals would affect the budget picture; without substantial cuts in government spending, both plans would sharply increase the national debt. Including interest costs, Obama would boost the debt by $3.4 trillion by 2018. McCain would increase the debt by $5 trillion.

(End of excerpt. The entire report is available in PDF format.)


View the original article here

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary - Revised September 15, 2008

library An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary - Revised September 15, 2008Roberton Williams, Howard Gleckman

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

This short paper summarizes the Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Revised September 15, 2008

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Neither candidate?s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.

Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. These projections assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010 and that the Alternative Minimum Tax is fully effective. Both candidates

(End of excerpt. The entire report is available in PDF format.)


View the original article here

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans

library An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax PlansLeonard E. Burman, Surachai Khitatrakun, Greg Leiserson, Jeff Rohaly, Eric Toder, Roberton Williams

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Updated tables analyzing the August 14, 2008 revision of the Obama tax plan are available here.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010 and the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans. While a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive, both candidates have proposed major tax changes. This report describes how we performed our modeling and analysis, outlines the major tax proposals, and discusses the implications of their policies for the revenue raised, taxpayer economic activity, and the distribution of the tax burden.

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president’s domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010. The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans in a web of pointless complexity and higher taxes, but a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive. In the past year, the federal budget deficit has ballooned, and, more worrisome, large projected increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will put unprecedented demands on federal government revenue sources in the coming decades.

Fundamental reform of our tax system is one way to resolve these problems, but, at least in part because reform creates both winners and losers, the leading presidential candidates have not addressed it seriously. Nonetheless, both candidates have proposed major changes to the nation’s tax laws. Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for investments in certain capital equipment. Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000 but repeal the cuts in the top two marginal income tax rates ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2010; increase the maximum rate on capital gains; raise the top tax rate on qualified dividends from its current level (but keep it below pre-2001 levels); and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers. Senator McCain proposes to extend permanently and increase the AMT “patch” that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax and lowered the tax for others, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch. Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama. Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate “corporate welfare.” Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don’t cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.8 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years. Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a “current policy” baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama’s proposals would raise $800 billion and Senator McCain’s proposals lose $600 billion.

The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.

The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate’s policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain’s proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama’s plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain’s reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama’s proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group—seniors —and an already favored activity—homeownership—which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

(End of excerpt. The entire report is available in PDF format.)


View the original article here

Health Savings Accounts and High-Deductible Health Insurance Plans : Implications for Those with High Medical Costs, Low Incomes, and the Uninsured

library Health Savings Accounts and High-Deductible Health Insurance Plans Linda J. Blumberg, Lisa Clemans-Cope

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full brief in PDF format.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and high-deductible health plans are prominently featured in many discussions of health reform.  The hope of supporters is that they will make individuals more prudent purchasers of medical care. However, the tax structure and incentives built into HSAs make them most attractive to the high-income and the healthy, populations already advantaged by the current system. HSA/high deductible plans shift more of the health financing burden onto those using significant amounts of care, with negative ramifications for the low-income and high-need. Nor is it clear that cost-containment, higher value shopping, or reductions in the uninsured will follow.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) feature prominently in many discussions of health reform.

In the context of proposals from the Obama administration and Congress, they will be of continuing interest as minimum benefit standards and insurance options under broad-based reform are discussed.While supporters hope they will make individuals more prudent purchasers of medical care, the tax structure and incentives built into HSAs make them most attractive to the high-income and the healthy, populations already advantaged by the current system.

Tax Advantages of HSAs

HSAs provide a generous tax incentive for certain individuals to seek out HDHPs with IRS-defined characteristics. Individuals buying qualified HDHPs either through their employer or in the private nongroup insurance market can make tax-deductible contributions into an HSA.Funds deposited into the accounts are deducted from income for tax purposes, and any earnings on the funds accrue tax free and are not subject to tax or penalty as long as they are withdrawn to cover medical costs.

HSAs in Practice

HSAs are intended to encourage more cost-conscious spending by placing more of the health care financing burden on out-of-pocket spending by the users of services, as opposed to having services incorporated in the premium component of insurance coverage, which is shared equally across all enrollees regardless of service use.Average in-network deductibles for employees enrolled in their employers’ HDHP/HSA plans are substantially higher than the IRS minimum for qualifying HDHPs.Roughly half of those with HSA-compatible policies do not open HSAs, despite the tax advantages, and two-thirds of employers report making no contribution to the HSAs of their workers. As a consequence, low-income or high health-care-need workers with these plans are likely to be exposed to much larger out-of-pocket financial burdens than they would be under a comprehensive policy.

(End of excerpt. The entire brief is available in PDF format.)


View the original article here

A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)

library A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)The Tax Policy Center

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010 and the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans. While a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive, both candidates have proposed major tax changes. This report describes how we performed our modeling and analysis, outlines the major tax proposals, and discusses the implications of their policies for the revenue raised, taxpayer economic activity, and the distribution of the tax burden.

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010. The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans in a web of pointless complexity and higher taxes, but a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive. And large projected increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will put unprecedented demands on federal government revenue sources in the coming decades.

Fundamental reform of our tax system is one way to resolve these problems, but because reform creates both winners and losers, the leading presidential candidates have not addressed it seriously. Nonetheless, both candidates have proposed major changes to the nation's tax laws. Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for the cost of certain short-lived capital equipment. Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000; increase the maximum rate on capital gains and qualified dividends; and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers. Senator McCain proposes to extend and expand permanently the AMT "patch" that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch. Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama. Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate "corporate welfare." Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don't cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a "current policy" baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $300 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $1.0 trillion (if fully phased-in and permanent), a decrease of roughly 2 percent. Senator McCain has stressed that deficits should be closed by spending cuts, but policies he identifies, such as limiting earmarks, would offset only part of the revenue losses attributable to his tax plan. As noted, both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes-Obama probably more than McCain.

The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain's proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-borrowing for housing-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

Both candidates have proposed to change the tax treatment of health insurance in important ways. This analysis does not address those proposals, but we expect to evaluate both plans soon.

Section I of the report describes how we obtained information about the candidates' tax plans and how we performed our modeling and analysis. In section II, we outline the major tax proposals put forth, and in section III, we discuss their implications for the revenue raised and taxpayer economic activity. Section IV looks at their effect on the distribution of the tax burden.

(End of excerpt. The full report is available in PDF format.)


View the original article here