LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 130
0 members and 130 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 10-19-2004, 02:29 PM   #3897
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
Pot to kettle: You're black!

Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
One of my prescriptions for social security would be on the funding side rather than the expenditure side. I think the fact that social security is funded solely from the wage base has a decided impact on our competitiveness (it's a cost business abroad often don't bear) and results in a regressive tax. I'd take the cap off and apply the tax to unearned income as well, and either use the additional funds to lower the tax rate or to remove the employer side wage tax. Of course, Moynihan fought this battle for years, with very little to show, so I'm probably not heading for Congress, either.
In most other industrialized countries, businesses and individuals bear a higher tax burden. That's in part because they have federally funded retirement benefits. It's also because these states have much higher welfare benefits. So in essence, whether you look at funding or payment out, broad-based or universal benefits result in a higher tax burden.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:52 AM.