It’s rather interesting that if you go to Obama’s web site’s section on economics, his speech on taxes, and his economic plan booklet… he never outlines in any detail how he would raise taxes. There’s a lot of talk about tax fairness, about how we have witnessed “a successful strategy to ride anti-tax sentiment in this country toward tax cuts that favor wealth, not work,” etc., but it’s near-impossible to find a table that says, “under my plan, this bracket would may this much, that bracket would pay that much,” etc.

I suppose Obama could say that any final tax package would inevitably be altered as it advanced through Congress, but it would be nice to see what, if he had final say, he would like our income tax levels to be for each level of income. Would he eliminate a bracket? Add a bracket? What top rate does he think is okay? If he really does raise the 12.4 percent Social Security tax above the first $96,000 $102,000* in income, the federal tax rate on top earners would be the pre-Bush 39.6 percent, plus 12.4 percent on every dollar you make. (The top tax bracket includes singles making more than $357,700 – a number that clearly is wealthy, but not, I would suggest, unbelievably wealthy in 2008 America.)

In short, the federal government would take 52 percent** of what you earn — and that’s before state and local income taxes, or property taxes or sales taxes…

The McCain camp and RNC have repeatedly spotlighted Obama’s vote for Senate Democrats’ tax plan that would raise the 25 percent federal tax rate to 28 percent. Note that the 25 percent bracket is between $32,550 and $78,850 for individuals and between $65,100 and $131,450 for married couples. At the time of the vote, the single bracket started at $31,850.

If Obama doesn’t think the criticism is fair, he ought to come out and say voting for the Democrats’ plan was a mistake, and that those making $31,850 don’t qualify as “the rich.” It’s not like he hasn’t admitted wrong votes in the past.

But he hasn’t. Which ought to tell us something.

* The $102,000 cap number is for 2008; last year it was $97,500.

** A reader sharper than I on tax issues notes that this does not include the capless Medicare tax rate – 1.45 percent of the employee’s income is paid by the employer as Medicare tax, and 1.45 percent is paid by the employee. Self-Employed pay the full 2.9 percent; so we’re really looking at a top tax rate of 53.45 percent to 54.9 percent for top earners.

UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, the complexity of the tax code makes writing about it a pain in the tush. A CPA reader points out:

Good analyses with one glaring exception: adding tax rates together doesn’t work. Each rate is applied to a unique number, e.g., the income tax rate is applied to net taxable income, which is taxable income from all sources reduced by exemptions and deductions. The social security tax is applied to earned wages only, which is only part of net taxable income. Further, if the cap on social security is removed, the new burden from lifting it is limited to the amount above the amount already being taxed. My point is, you can’t simply add rates together because the various tax rates are applied to varying numbers. The net effect of adding rates together, as was done here, overstates the effective tax rate. Other than these quibbles, a great article.

And another reader:

Two other things that the 52 percent rate doesn’t include is the disallowance of the miscellaneous itemized deduction up to an amount equal to 3 percent of adjusted gross income. That causes an increase in the effective rate of tax of about 1.2 percent. In addition, Rangel proposed a surtax equal to 4 percent of adjusted taxable income. If these items plus the Medicare tax are counted, the marginal federal rate would be around 60 percent. Note also that in order to get the 28 percent rate in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, high earning taxpayers gave up a treasure trove of deductions, credits and other allowances.