UPDATE: McMahon campaign economist responds to Claim Check analysis.
Each election season, politicians of all stripes engage in hard-core courting of the middle class — that vast swath of the American electorate capable of swinging a vote any which way. That love fest is fully evident in a pair of ads from Linda McMahon’s Senate campaign that mention the middle class six times in 60 seconds.
“Middle class families are really struggling right now,” Brandi, from Naugatuck, says in both ads, one of which also features cable-news clips of dismal unemployment figures. “If the middle class gets back on its feet, then you’re going to see we’re going to have a very strong economy.”
Both spots hit their mark in portraying McMahon as focused on job creation and cutting taxes for the middle class. But the ads’ one specific assertion — that McMahon’s tax plan “would save the average Connecticut family $500 a month” — fails under scrutiny. The problem is in the campaign’s definition of “savings” and its definition of the average Connecticut family, one of which is misleading and the other incorrect.
First, the savings: The most reasonable reading of the ad’s claim is that under McMahon’s plan, the average family would pay $500 a month less in taxes than they do now; that they’d actually be able to pocket that extra $500 a month, or $6,000 a year.
But that’s not how the campaign calculated the numbers.
Instead, the $500 savings is a potential reduction not off a family’s current federal income tax bill, but off what their tax bill could be in 2013 if the Bush-era tax cuts expire, a scenario that would add thousands to a middle-class family’s taxes. In fact, the majority of McMahon’s savings can be attributed to comparing her plan to a possible future tax hike should the cuts expire. (Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill both favor extending the Bush tax cuts for middle-class earners, but disagreement over extending the cuts for wealthier Americans has stalled Congressional action.)
Tim Murtaugh, a campaign spokesman, said the ad’s comparison is fair because McMahon would not take office until 2013, and that absent a compromise in Washington, the tax rates will automatically increase on Jan. 1. He said even the Congressional Budget Office is obligated to assume that tax rates will jump next year. “If it’s good enough for the Congressional Budget Office, it’s good enough for us,” he said.
But there is no mention in the ad that the savings are based on 2013 tax rates rather than current rates.
Murtaugh said even if the Bush tax cuts are extended, McMahon’s plan would still represent a significant savings for the average Connecticut family, and he provided a spreadsheet comparison indicating McMahon’s plan would reduce the family’s annual federal income tax bill by $3,860 compared to current tax rates.
But the campaign got its math wrong, using incorrect tax brackets in its calculation and overstating the tax savings under McMahon’s plan by more than $1,000. In reality, under the plan, the average Connecticut family — as defined by the campaign — would see its tax bill drop by about $2,700. That’s less than half the amount touted in the ad.
But that figure also overstates the savings, because the “average Connecticut family” used in the campaign’s calculations isn’t actually the average Connecticut family. The campaign is billing McMahon’s plan as a middle-class tax cut, and in settling on a figure to represent a middle-class income, Murtaugh said the campaign decided to use $125,000 — half the $250,000 figure President Obama has used as the upper end of the middle class. “I think we’re completely within reason to use that figure,” he said.
In the ads, however, that $125,000 income figure morphs from a generic middle-class income level to the basis for calculating the specific tax savings for “the average Connecticut family.”
But that’s not what the average family makes. 
According to the latest Census Bureau numbers, average family income in Connecticut is $108,000 — and calculating taxes using that figure wipes out an additional one-third of the claimed savings under McMahon’s plan.
All told, the McMahon plan would cut the average family’s bill by $987 a year, or $82 a month, off what they pay now — better than nothing for those struggling families, but a small fraction of the savings claimed by the ad. (And statisticians remind us that “average” doesn’t mean “typical.” About two-thirds of Connecticut families make less than the average of $108,000, according to Census figures. Substitute the median family income — the midpoint at which half the families in the state make more and half make less — and McMahon’s plan would keep a family’s taxes right where they are now.)
Bottom line: Viewers who hear the claim that “McMahon has a plan to cut middle-class taxes” and that “her plan would save the average Connecticut family $500 a month” will assume that McMahon’s plan would lop $500 a month of what an average family is currently paying. That is not the case. As a result, we rate these ads significantly misleading.
Note: View McMahon’s ads below, and read her full economic-policy proposal at www.lindasplan.com.
Click here for more information on Claim Check.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
60 Responses to Claim Check: Linda McMahon and the $6,000 Tax Savings
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
I would like to know what political experience Linda has that would qualify her for such a pretigious position as a US Senator. Any local, state or other political experience? Most politicians seeking such a high office at least have some experience in the public sector. Maybe if she was a state rep or town offical she would be more acceptable as a candidiate. WWF involvement does’t cut it with me.
You mean a Community Organizer shouldn’t have been made a 1-term Senator with no significant record who then became President?
I agree with you.
‘prestigious’??? You mean like the clowns that are currently entrenched in Washington? I’ll take a business man or woman any day over a career politician that hasn’t seen a real day’s work in quite some time, if ever.
I think it’s completely fair to use $125,000 as the average. If our president is using $250,000 as the end of the middle class, then the $125,000 makes sense. Her website states that the numbers they are giving are applicable to a family making $125,000. And there’s a calculator on the website that allows people to factor their savings based off of their income. Besides, at least Linda has a plan – that’s better than her Chris and Chris counterparts.
What I truly care about is the fact that Linda is a job creator and has different experience. She will provide a fresh perspective in Washington, and I think we truly need that right now. Let’s go Linda!
So, you are convinced she will be a “job creator”, why? Because she SAID so?
Senator’s don’t create jobs, they make laws. Linda McMahon is no more qualified to be Senator than the guy who owns a Subway franchise or the pimple faced kid at the counter. This has nothing to do with being on the right or left. 2 Years ago she tried to “buy” the election using out of state printers and mailers. This time she’s pulled that back and is refusing to give interviews. Wake up Connecticut, Linda McMahon does not give 2 cents about the middle class or the lower class. Look at the reply of the last debate, she looked like a deer in the headlights. She’ll never beat Chris Murphy period. And, someone tell her that it takes the 2 houses of Congress and a Presidents signature to pass a law. Run for the School Board in Greenwich, save the rest of us from this hell we’re going through with you again.
Yes, you’re right. They make laws and take your money. However, unlike the career politicians in Washington, she know the value of a hard day’s work. And your claim of trying to ‘buy’ the election… she refused government stipends (that everyone else gets) to pay for campaign expenses, instead using her own money and that of donors. As for passing a law, you again are correct. That’s why the current crop in Washington (and here in CT) pass ‘acts’ and ‘decrees’, to circumvent the whole ‘law’ inconvenience.
I’d rather support someone spending their own money than someone filling their pockets with contributions from corporate interests.
But it’s more fashionable to demonize people that succeed these days, I suppose.
The median (half above, half below) is what most people think on as average. According to the Courant in 2011 the median family income in CT in just $64,000.
http://articles.courant.com/2011-09-22/business/hc-census-income-uninsured-0922-20110922_1_median-household-income-richest-state-capita
Hi Tom.
Just to clarify: Median household income is different (and typically lower) than median family income. So while median household income in Connecticut is in the mid-60s, the median family income is currently a little over $81,000.
Boy, are you either misinformed or leaving on an island somewhere for most of your life…$125,000? with the recession people’s earning power has gone down..also se
http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claimcheck-linda-mcmahon-and-the-6000-tax-savings/
Stop trying to say she is a moral, honest business woman who has created jobs…
She went on Bill O’Reilly and said WWE was family entertainment…
She and her husband have both been part of WWE entertainment…her character and her past is at the very least flawed and at the worst reprehensible.
Now she expects to take her seriously?
You either have no idea about who she really is or you refuse to believe the facts.
Life long Republican.. Can’t support Linda..When the lesser of two evils is this bad makes you want to skip that race
I fully support Linda – she is exactly what CT needs. I’m sick of seeing the same career politicians getting elected into office and not fixing our economy. Have the voters not realized this yet? We need a fresh perspective – we need job creators. And that’s exactly what Linda is.
Explain to me what jobs Linda will create, how she will create them and what job creation experience she has outside of WWE. If you look at her career, she has condoned the exploitation of women, looked the other way on steroid/HGH use, did not take care of employees and their families when they were sick and dying and both the McMahons and WWE have a questionable past regarding financial and tax practices. Linda has absolutely no elected official experience and would accomplish absolutely nothing during her first term in the senate. This latest misguided attempt to relate to the middle class will never materialize if she is elected because, as the article states, the criteria and formula she used are wrong and, more importantly, Linda will not be in an influential position to propose and garner support for it. For Ms. McMahon, the senate seat is all about power and connecting with the inner circle of the federal government. She is not wired to be an advocate of positive change for the middle and lower class. It would be fair to compare Linda to former Republican Congresswoman Nancy Johnson who accomplished a lot for CT. There are no common attributes here.
Why should it take “connecting with the inner circle of the federal government” to get things done? Isn’t that the very foundation of what’s wrong with the government now? Nothing gets done through regular channels…it all takes backroom deals. Nothing is conducted in the light of day anymore, and that’s why people are upset.
So I take it, Nutmeg, that you supported Ned Lamont when he ran for Senate, too?
And one more thing, Nutmeg. I invite you to pick up one WWE tee shirt or hat and tell me where it was made. If Linda McMahon gave to sh*ts about creating jobs in the USA, that WWE merchandise would say “MADE IN THE USA.” I’m telling you right now, it doesn’t. Job creator my a$$.
As a freshmen senator her ability to pass tax legislation would be zero. Veteran pols with considerable clout can’t get the job done.
We’re so much better off with career politicians in office? Instead of criticizing how “little power” a freshman senator would have, why don’t we instead wonder why seasoned senators don’t use their power to make positive changes.
Release your tax returns Linda!!!
If Linda were a drug company, she wouldn’t tell you about the side effects. Voters should create one for her like “if you run for an election, spend millions, twice in a row, and don’t win, please call your Doctor.”
I tuned out the commercials as soon as I saw “Naugatuck” and “West Hartford” — definitely not your “average” neighborhoods. Sure Brandi knows Linda; they travel in the same social circles. Since I don’t consider promoting violence, drug use, and degradation of women “entertainment,” Linda can go pound sand.
I still remember Lina introducing herself at the Hebron Maple Syrup Festival and not one person acknowledged her. She proceeded to walk off to another crowd. It was telling of what the people really think about her.
That only proves that people in Hebron are rude.
Or have good taste.
Showing your displeasure with a politician is rude? People just don’t agree with her politics.
She’s only a politician if she gets elected. Right now she’s just a talking head for pro wrestling.
What kind of reduction are the other candidates projecting in resident’s taxes? $87 per month isn’t much…but it’s better than nothing, and it’s a lot better than an increase. Give me something to compare it too before you ridicule it.
Did you read the article? Her claim of the tax saving is significantly misleading. It is based on projected 2013 taxes and the assumption that the GWB tax reductions won’t be extended, which is unlikely. In any events, I doubt she will save anyone a dime if she is elected, CT won’t send someone like her to DC.
A good analysis.
I would like to see the Courant do similar analysis on Chris Murphy’s plan.
Oh wait – he does not have a plan. Sorry. Silly me.
I would not vote for Linda McMahon. She’s a phony and only cares about herself. She only wants to be in Washington to help herself by helping the fake wrestling industry. She does not have my vote.
Linda is the conservative choice in this race! I back McMahon!
She spent $50,000,000 of “her own money”? Good! I hope
she spends $100,000,000 and loses.
She probably would have saved “the average Connecticut family” more money if she just had handed that money directly to them, and not run. It would have saved a lot of trees, and from having to hear her annoying voice on teevee every five minutes too.
McMahon will do anything just to get to the senate including stealing the UCONN sports logo on her website. (UCONN is a non-political org. and made her pull the logo last week) Don’t be fooled by a queen of smoke and mirrors producer. That is all she and her husband are, smoke and mirror entertainers. She is an investor who will want all her money back with a return in profits with are tax dollars and selling out to corprate gain.
Isn’t the “McMahon Plan” predicated that she not only would get elected, but would have enough clout in the senate to get her plan passed. I suspect that the other 99 might have different ideas.
Im voting Chris Shays, the true Republican who can get this country back on track. I will NOT be voting for the Obamaclone that is Chris Murphy and I certainly will NOT be voting for Linda McMahon. Why?
-She is NOT a job creator, she hopped on the coattails of her husbands industry thats true ‘job creation’ accounts for celebrity wrestlers…41 of which died before they were 50 years old.
-She is NOT a true conservative. Donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, and various other Dems to defeat republicans like Rob Simmonds and Chris Shays is not the act of a true Republican but that of a wannabe career politician. Also, dropping 60+ million dollars only to lose 2 elections is not fiscally conservative either.
-She is UNABLE to effectively represent CT people. When faced with a tuff question she either ignores it (Editorial Boards, debates) or sticks to her phony script as a job creator with her Bullcrap Jobs Plan which is called to question in this article.
These are the facts. Choose wisely CT, don’t be swayed by big money or liberal puppets
Spot on. I fell for this garbage in 2010, not doing it again. I’ll vote for Chris Shays who has a better chance appealing to not only Republicans but independents and Democrats than she does.
The senate needs more moderates…not celebrities
I agree. If you look at Linda’s plan, you will find it is full of platitudes and short on details. She says she will create jobs by doing the following: 1. Personal and business tax cuts to stimulate demand and create jobs.
2. Job training to better match applicants to available jobs.
3. Reduce government regulation of businesses.
4. Pass a balanced budget amendment.
5. Stimulate investments in energy production (oil, gas, nuclear).
Presumably, her business experience enabled her to see that these things are needed. However, they are described in very general terms. Details will be required to implement, and, as they say, the devil is in the details. If she created jobs in her company by merely setting out general goals such as these, she ought to credit her staff with job creation, not herself.
1. This article shows that her personal tax cuts won’t affect most middle class families. Her business tax cuts will help to further concentrate wealth, but they won’t stimulate investment unless demand rises. She has no plan to stimulate demand.
2. Matching people to available jobs doesn’t create new jobs. It fills existing job openings. Her proposal to shorten training periods for job certification could lead to certification of unqualified job applicants and all of the problems that would cause. One example of accelerated certification is her own self-certification as a qualified Senatorial candidate and all the problems it would cause if she were actually elected.
3. Which government regulations would she eliminate? Those that prohibit exploitation of workers (such as wrestlers)? Those that protect the environment? She hasn’t said. Her claim that companies would hire more people if the cost of regulation were reduced again presupposes that there currently exists unsatisfied demand for companys’ products. There doesn’t. Under these conditions, reducing the cost of production would merely increase profits. It wouldn’t create any jobs.
4. Her balanced budget amendment is not something she can promise to get passed. She can only promise to vote for it. Unless we are prepared to restructure the priorities of the US, a balanced budget amendment would have the affect of squeezing existing priorities. Arguably, it might throw us into a depression. Which of our current priorities is she prepared to sacrifice? Social Security? Tax cuts for the wealthy?
5. Her proposal for creating energy jobs is a proposal to help certain states (Texas, Alaska) create jobs. It won’t create very many energy jobs in Connecticut, and she seeks to be OUR Senator.
She’s doing everything wrong. She needs to say she’s going to raise taxes and give more handouts to free loading trash . Than people will vote for her in this cesspool state
dems take money and give it to unions and create noting.
republicans give us our money back. Let us decide what we should do with our money. Why do most of the CT people get so enamored with letting the govt. take our money? White guilt? Then give your money to my black family instead.
Ms. McMahon you donating tens of thousands to several high ranking democrats that helped pass Obamacare. What say you?
McMahon: …er…I am a job creator.
I am all for Linda. She cares about the people of CT and she wants what is best for this state. She’s not doing it for fame or fortune, she’s running with good intentions. She has a plan for our country and I find that admirable. We need a job creator and we truly need Linda.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Oh, wow, that’s a good one.
How about all the Hartford Courant employees releasing their tax returns. Publish them in a Sunday issue, it would be good for circulation!
What made the Vietnam Hero Dick Blumnethal qualified?
Was it the 32,000 lawsuites against CT businesses?
Was it his army of 200 attorneys that put some companies out of business?
Was it his multi – millions because hs is rich?
Did Dick ever miss a photo op?
Talk about the professional politician, why was he qualified?
Let’s put a successful business person in the Senate, someone that (although some can’t get over the type of business) one that she built from the ground up, Bloomy inherited his millions, she worked for it.
Right on the same people who say she’s not qualified are the same dumb dumbs who voted for Obama he was a senator for 2 years that makes him qualified for president. C’mon people for once can we have a republican senator. Yes shes a millionaire but she got there through her hard work and people make her out like shes a monster for it. She has her large business here in ct and hasn’t moved it. Just give her a chance
Linda’s latest “kinder, gentler” veneer gives me the creeps. Prior to reading the Fact Check examination, I perused her plan and instantly recognized how utterly ridiculous it is. One plank, for instance, derides “all the new regulations added since [of course] 2008.” And as for the jobs she has created, these hinge on selling popcorn and setting up chairs for extravaganzas of violence–not exactly skilled positions with which to support a family in our state. She is surely one desperate woman.
Your a joke . Her business is entertainment and yet your still not satisfied with the jobs it brings. My god it’s people like you who vote for these retards like blumy and Malloy . They kill jobs and the middle class yet you kudos them but Linda has a business and creates jobs but those jobs aren’t the ones you want. Just make out a list of the jobs your feel are up to your standards and mayb we all can cater to your needs
Shays for senate.
Thank you very much for looking into this. The only point that I think has been missed is that taxable income can differ substantially from gross income. People with mortgages and property taxes have big deductions. Even the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly was $11,600 in 2011. Neither the average nor the median income figures used here reflect net taxable income, and this is what matters in the calculations. It wouldn’t surprise me if the average household earning $108,000 per year had a taxable income less than or equal to the median gross income of Connecticut households ($83,000). If I am correct, more than 2/3 of Connecticut households would receive little or no benefit under Linda’s Plan.
I agree
Hi Russ.
You’re absolutely right that there can be a sizable spread between gross income and taxable income. In this case, the $125,000 figure used by the campaign and the $108,000 figure cited in the story are in fact gross-income figures, and the tax calculations do take into account typical deductions off gross income. The McMahon campaign assumed a married couple with two children, so the calculations include the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly ($11,900 in 2012), as well as four personal exemptions (which the campaign valued at $14,800 under its proposed plan, although they are worth $15,200 under current law.) So the campaign’s tax calculation for a family making $125,000 was based on taxable income of $98,300.
As for how many families would see a benefit under the McMahon plan compared to current tax rates, the biggest difference between the two tax plans is that under current law, tax rates jump from 15 percent to 25 percent at a taxable income of $70,700, while under McMahon’s plan, the 15-percent rate stays in effect until taxable income tops $143,350. So families would see a savings over their current tax liability once their taxable income exceeded $70,700, which, adding in the standard deduction and the personal exemptions, would equate to a gross income of $97,800. That figure is right at about the 60th percentile for Connecticut families, so roughly 60 percent of families would not see a reduction off their current tax bill under McMahon’s plan, and 40 percent would receive a tax cut.
That said, the McMahon campaign says its savings were based not on current tax rates, but on the rates that would be in effect next year if the Bush tax cuts are not extended or revised. Under that scenario, all taxable income would be subject to a tax rate of at least 15 percent, as opposed to a lowest tax rate of 10 percent under McMahon’s plan and current law. As such, all families with a tax liability would pay less if McMahon’s plan were substituted for the tax rates that would be in effect if the Bush tax cuts expire and are not replaced.
Thanks Matthew.
I am aware that their calculator considers 4 personal exemptions for a married couple with 2 children. I suspected that they must rely on the standard deduction as well. However, the percentage of people that use the standard deduction varies by income level. The higher your income the more advantageous it is to use it. My expectation is that most people with incomes above $100,000 itemize their deductions, so that their deductions exceed $11,900, possibly by a great deal. In your example, the total deductions amount to $27,100 for someone using the standard deduction. People with more than $11,900 in itemized deductions will itemize, so their total deductions will be larger than this. Most people in this situation have a mortgage and property taxes to deduct. These provide large deductions against income. Someone in this situation could easily have over $30,000 in itemized deductions (versus the standard deduction of $11,900). With $30,000 in itemized deductions, their gross income would be $115,900, and their taxable income would also be $70,700, the number in you example. Therefore, they would see no savings versus current tax laws. The $115,900 figure is pretty close to the $125,000 figure that campaign used to get $6,000 in savings for an average household (assuming the Bush tax cuts expire for the middle class, which is unlikely). I think the use of itemized deductions is very high for households earning $100,000-$125,000, and that the average household in this income bracket would claim deductions that would bring their taxable income down near $70,700. None of these people would see a significant tax break under Linda’s plan. Therefore, I think your 40% figure for households seeing some savings versus current law is too high.
The percentage of households that would see significant savings versus current law is much lower. The tax savings applies only to the portion of taxable incomes that exceeds $70,700. Someone with $79,800 in taxable income would save only $910 per year. This corresponds to a household earning $125,000 with $30,000 in itemized deductions and $15,200 in personal deductions.
P.S. Linda’s tax plan has been out for a while, so it seems strange that her baseline would have been set to assume that the Bush tax cuts would go away in 2012 BEFORE it became evident to prospective voters that Congress was prepared to let that happen THIS YEAR. She is advertising savings against a scenario that still isn’t certain.
Furthermore, she is acting as if the Democrats are not in favor of extending the part of the Bush tax cuts that applies to the first $250,000 of taxable income. However, this is exactly their proposal, and it is what they expect to seek for 2013. Since neither party wants to raise taxes on the middle class, it is virtually certain that middle class tax rates will not rise next year. Something will be done to replace the Bush tax cuts. Relative to the Democrat’s plan for 2013, her plan offers no extra savings for the middle class, yet she is claiming to offer something better. And she is, but not to the middle class. She is offering it to households that are in the highest tax bracket. Under her plan, households in the highest tax bracket will do far better than they would under the Democrat’s plan.
The bottom line is that she has put forth a straw man argument. She is pretending that taxes are certain to rise on the middle class (when they are virtually certain to stay the same) and using this manufactured threat to induce Connecticut’s middle class to vote for her plan to further enrich the wealthiest Americans.
Clear
She’s no better than any other running……She’s just another Obama in womens clothes in other words she’s FOS also.
Just out of curiosity, how much would Linda McMahon, and her husband, save on taxes under her plan??
Linda’s staement of tax savings is not just a little misleading, it is an outright falsehood without its context. By fearing the truth Linda becomes just another “politician”.
[...] year. Her plan is to reduce the total amount paid in taxes by $500 each month. However, a recent blog from the Hartford Courant shows that her plan is somewhat [...]