As we all learned in history class, discontent over British-levied taxes ranked high among the grievances that led to the Declaration of Independence and our split from England.

Two and a quarter centuries later, our fundamental unease with taxes remains strong. A weak economy and federal deficits add to that unease and lend added importance to the debate over tax policy in this election year.

Surprisingly, given the political divisiveness of the present age, the tax proposals of Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama are similar in certain broad ways, representing perhaps a shared recognition of the need for at least some fiscal prudence during these troubled times.

That said, the proffered tax plans of the two presidential candidates also display, as is expected, a wide ideological difference as to how taxes should be assessed across income groups and corporations.

McCain's tax proposals would, in general, lower taxes most significantly for the wealthy, continuing the long-held Republican belief that cutting taxes for the well-to-do will motivate them to invest in the economic engine that powers this country.

Obama's proposal would, overall, reduce the tax burden on many lower-income taxpayers and raise taxes for those having the largest paychecks.

The McCain and Obama proposals are both, as of now, bullet-point sketchy, to put it charitably. The Tax Policy Center reports that "one challenge facing anyone who wants to estimate the effects of candidates' tax plans is that no one — not even inside the campaigns — knows exactly what the proposals are." Given that both plans would reduce tax revenues and increase the national debt in a time of deficits, details need to be forthcoming soon.

The tax center notes that "both candidates promise to recoup at least some of their tax cuts by broadening the tax base and reducing corporate loopholes." Getting such measures past an army of corporate lobbyists and through Congress will require an epic struggle.

And while both plans have some merit as well as deep flaws, Obama's plan comes closest to what's needed to move the country forward and help make the American Dream a reality for the largest number of people.

Eighteenth-century economist Adam Smith, a granddaddy of free-market thinking, observed that at a minimum, taxation should be equitable across income classes. Smith wrote that people should pay taxes "in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

That's not to say that government should squash investment and growth in our market-based economy by hammering away mercilessly at the rich until some sort of utopian pipe dream is in sight. Rather, in these times of shattered housing dreams, market bears devouring investment dollars and auto fuel tanks that demand more and more of our hard-earned dollars, the poor and middle class simply need to retain a bit more of their paychecks if they're to remain financially solvent.

Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center, would reduce taxes by an average 6.2 percent for the lowest one-fifth of income-earners in 2012. McCain's plan would lead to a 0.9 percent reduction for that same group.

Obama's plan also calls for automatic worker enrollment in employer 401(k) plans, a sensible move given that old-fashioned pensions are becoming extinct.

The Democratic senator's plan is far from perfect, though. Obama's campaign would do well to run some numbers based on McCain's proposal to reduce the maximum corporate tax rate to 25 percent, from the current 35 percent. In a rugged economy of stagnant growth and global competition, U.S. companies would benefit from the tax break. Remaining competitive globally is the best way to keep good jobs in this country. Tax incentives would especially help the growing entrepreneurial companies that have been major job creators in recent years.

In the final analysis, neither political party has an absolute lock on efficient tax policies, especially given that both McCain and Obama advocate holding at bay the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax and using tax policy to encourage companies to invest in research and development. Such steps may be wise, but they also reduce federal revenue, and the trillion-dollar question is how to pay for smart policies in an era of big deficits. Still, even a few bipartisan similarities bode well for a more sensible tax policy regardless of which candidate takes office next year.

— Andre Jackson, for the editorial board