here is no greater rift between the presidential candidates than on the question of tax cuts.
George W. Bush's proposed tax cuts are sweeping. Almost every American would pay less in taxes. But the cuts would tend to benefit the affluent more. And the government may have to scale back programs to pay for them.
Gore's approach is more modest. He offers tax breaks for college tuition, retirement, energy-efficient technology, and a host of other things. It is a continuation of Bill Clinton's policy of using the tax code to reward good behavior. But this begs the question: Why should Clinton and Gore be allowed to define good behavior?
The difference is stark, and goes to the heart of each candidate's ideology.
Government basically performs two tasks: taxing and spending. Spending establishes a government's priorities. Taxing defines its reach. Bush says he wants to limit government. His tax cut is his main vehicle for doing so. Gore says he believes in efficient but active government. His proposal mirrors this.
Tax policy can be complicated. But it's too important to ignore. Let's begin with the Bush plan.
Bush attacks the structure of the tax system. There are five brackets. Those in the lowest one send 15 percent of their income to the federal government. The next one up is 28 percent, then 31 percent, 36 percent, and the highest incomes pay 39.6 percent.
Bush would create a structure with lower taxes across the board: 10 percent for the lowest bracket, then 15, 25, and 33 percent.
Bush would also give tax credits to some married couples, low-income families, school districts, and research labs. And he would eliminate the estate tax, which families must pay before they can inherit the property of a deceased relative.
The overall benefit of Bush's plan is obvious: more money in the pockets of taxpayers. They can spend it as they see fit. The economy could be further stimulated by this spending.
But three-fifths of Bush's tax cuts go to top 10 percent of earners, those making $92,500 or more, according to an analysis by the Citizens for Tax Justice. So those who pay the most in taxes get the most money back. But do they benefit the most? That depends on whether you measure the value of the benefit in dollars or in the impact of the tax cut on the taxpayer's lifestyle.
For example, someone making $86,600 a year would get a $1,447 tax cut. Someone making $31,100 gets $453. But some would say that $453, representing a substantial chunk of the person's total tax bite, has more impact on the lower-income taxpayer, even though it is a lesser amount.
Then there is the impact on the government. Bush's tax cuts would cost the federal government $1.9 trillion between 2002 and 2011. He would pay for it out of the projected surplus, saying that it is right to return this unused money to the taxpayers. But the surplus is optimistically estimated over that period at $1.8 trillion. Bush may have to make up the difference by dipping into Social Security or Medicare, which have their own surpluses. Or he may have to make offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Now to the Gore plan.
The vice president would leave the basic tax structure as is. Instead, he offers a plethora of credits: for married couples, low-income families, research labs, school construction, college tuition, day care, long-term care for the elderly, and use of energy efficient products. Gore would also create special retirement accounts, in which the government would give seniors matching funds if they want to invest in stocks.
Gore's premise is that the tax policy designed over Clinton's eight years in office is sound. His credits seek to give certain people a helping hand and to promote certain practices. It would cost about $500 billion over the next decade, which could more easily come out of the surplus.
It is likely that not everyone eligible for a Gore tax break will take advantage of it. The Gore plan is so complex that many individual taxpayers won't know exactly what credits are available, or how to fill out the right paperwork on Tax Day.
But there is a more fundamental criticism: The Gore plan subjectively rewards certain people at the expense of others. The surplus was created by all taxpayers. Gore's credits would return some of that money to a selected group.
It is the government making choices for citizens, enforcing its own values and rewarding those who fit some subjective definition of ''good,'' the conservative would argue. Advocates for Gore's approach would reply: Sometimes government does know best, and is in a position to encourage activities that the market does not.
It's an argument as old as democracy itself.
