home

A Tax Cut for The Common Good

Jim Webb wrote:

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. . . . The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes. ... [T]he true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

I propose the following tax plan to address in a small way the problem Jim Webb identifies.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF FAMILIES FIRST TAX REFORM

Benefits for Families

* Eliminating income taxes for all families of four making under $50,000. Under this plan, no family of four making under $50,000 will have to pay income taxes.

* A simple three-line form determines who pays federal income taxes. Under this plan, families will only need to fill out a simple three-line form to find out if they need to pay federal income taxes, providing their income, number of children, and marital status.

* The majority of families will not need to file tax returns. Under this reform, more than half of American families will no longer need to file tax returns. The government will withhold the correct amount of taxes from the families paycheck or provide them with the correct tax credit. If they still want to file a tax form, they can. This system has been proven to work in thirty-six countries, including the United Kingdom.1

* Attacking poverty: 3.2 million lower-income taxpayers will be taken off the tax rolls. Professor Jeffery Liebman of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government has done estimates of the Tax Reform plan and found that it will take 3.5 million taxpayers off the tax rolls - resulting in 54 percent of working American families with children paying no income taxes.2 This means, the majority of working families with children will pay no income taxes.

* Encouraging opportunity and responsibility by making work pay. Family First Tax Reform, combined with this proposal to raise the minimum wage to $7 by 2007, will raise the reward for families that work. At the same time, the new, expanded tax credits can be used to pay for transportation and childcare, enabling more families to work. Studies show that this will increase labor force participation, move families from welfare to work, and thus help the economy.

* Reduce or eliminate the marriage penalty for millions of low-income families. The 2001 tax cut ended the marriage penalty for millions of middle-class families but left a marriage penalty for low-income families. This Tax Reform will fix that injustice- reducing or eliminating marriage penalties for millions of low-income families.

* Hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty. Currently the EITC does not provide any additional help for families with more than two children. This plan will fix that-consolidating and expanding on the EITC and lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

* Helping Squeezed Middle-Class Families: All middle-class taxpayers with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut. This Tax Reform will restore fairness to the tax code, providing a tax cut for all families with children making up to $100,000 annually. Of these families, 15 million low-income families currently receiving net tax credits through the EITC and other credits will get larger tax credits. In addition, 3.2 million low-income adults without children will get expanded tax breaks. In total 31 million families will benefit-with the typical tax cut being $1,477.3

Families First Tax Reform: Representative Families

Helping typical families: A police officer married to a part-time worker raising two children on $50,000 annually-no more federal income taxes. Currently this family pays $1,549 in federal income taxes, this plan will eliminate their taxes - and the government will give them a tax credit refund of $34. That's a $1,583 tax cut. What this means to a typical family:

* $1,500 is five months of groceries4
* $1,500 is more than seven months of the worker contribution to a typical health insurance plan5
* $1,500 is a year of utility bills for the typical New Hampshire family.6

Expanding EITC benefits to reduce poverty: A cashier married to a custodian raising three children while working for the minimum wage-an extra $2,287 tax break. A couple working full-time for the minimum wage - $5.15 an hour -earns $21,000 annually. Under current law their EITC is limited to the first two children. This plan will end that limitation - providing them an additional tax credit of $2,287.

Helping all middle-class families: A firefighter married to a teacher raising two children on an annual income of $85,000-a $975 tax cut. Currently this family pays $7,445 in taxes. This plan will cut their taxes by $975.

Helping single parents: A single parent raising one child on the $30,000 a year she makes in her own small business-$793 to help with the bills. This Families First Tax Reform will eliminate her income taxes and replace them with a credit - in total $793 in tax relief to help with the bills.

Reducing the marriage penalty for low-income couples: Married army privates with two children each making $15,000-Marriage penalty reduced substantially. Under current law, this family faces a marriage penalty. Like many low-income families, they pay more in taxes than they would pay if they were single-$1,499 more. This plan will reduce their marriage penalty, providing a $882 tax cut.

How Families First Tax Reform Works

$2,250 tax credit per child - Consolidating existing tax breaks. Families First Tax Reform will consolidate and expand on four tax breaks for families with children: The Child Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the dependent exemption. Instead of filling out forms for each of these tax credits, families will just reduce their taxes by $2,250 per child.

Available for children up to age 17. The Families First Tax Credit will be available for children up to age 17. This and other eligibility rules will be based on the rules for the existing Child Tax Credit. The credit will phase down for families making over $100,000.

Incentives for lower-income families to work. Like the current EITC, the new Child Tax Credit will phase-in with income. A family making $5,000 will be eligible for a refund of up to $2,000 and a family making $10,000 will be eligible for a refund of up to $4,000 annually. The refund will be capped for families with more than three children.

Expanded benefits for low-income adults without children. Clark's Tax Reform builds on the existing EITC for childless adults, raising the maximum credit from $382 to $500.

No families with incomes under $200,000 will be hurt by Families First Tax Reform. No families with incomes under $200,000 will pay more in taxes than they do today.

Paying for Families First Tax Reform

This Tax Reform will restore fairness to the tax system without increasing the deficit. The Family First credits will cost $33 billion annually - which will be fully paid for by:

A 5 percentage point rate increase on income over $1 million annually-Only impacting the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers. The rate increase will apply to families making more than $1 million annually. In tax year 2004, an estimated 200,000 tax units or 0.1 percent of tax filers earned over $1 million annually.7 As under current law, the rate increase will not apply to any capital gains and will not apply to the first $1 million earned.

Receipts will be earmarked for lower-income and middle-class families tax reform and could not be used for any other purpose. The money from the 5 percentage point rate increase could only be used for tax reform and could not be used for new spending.

Closing corporate tax loopholes, including ones that reward companies for shifting jobs overseas. Currently the United States provides tax breaks for companies that shift their headquarters - and their jobs - overseas. This plan will crack down on these and other tax shelters, endorsing the Senate Democratic legislation to close tax loopholes that will save an average of $10 billion annually.8

$2.35 trillion Savings for America's Future Plan. This plan includes the repeal of Bush tax cuts that benefit families making over $200,000 annually, cutting corporate welfare, streamlining government, and a success strategy for Iraq. This plan ensures that middle class families are protected from the repeal of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts.

Major Tax Reform

This plan established five basic principles for tax reform: It should make the tax code simpler, fairer, more progressive, and more pro-growth - without increasing the deficit.

Simpler - Eliminating hundreds of pages of the tax code and dozens of pages of forms. Families First Tax Reform will make it possible to reduce hundreds of pages of the tax code down to one easy-to-use form. The IRS could eliminate dozens of pages of forms and publications that confuse taxpayers.9 All of the confusing definitions of a child used for different parts of the tax code will all be boiled down to one simple definition.

* No-returns tax system. More than half of American families will not have to fill out a tax form.
* Simplicity will benefit low-income EITC families. Currently, as many as 14 percent of the families with children that could benefit from the EITC fail to sign up for the credit.10 In addition, there are serious concerns about error rates for the EITC. Many errors stem from the confusing definitions of children. These complications cost low-income families-according to the IRS, 68 percent EITC filers use a paid preparer because the forms are too complicated to figure out on their own.11

* Simplifying capital taxation. This plan is committed to further simplifying taxes for middle-class families by reforming the taxation of capital.

Fairer - ending the "Middle Class Parent Penalty" and the low-income marriage penalty. Currently millions of low-income families get a marriage penalty in the form of higher taxes. And middle-class families receive less of a tax break for their children than high- or low-income families.12 Under Families First Tax Reform families will get the same tax break for having a child.

Middle Class Parent Penalty Under Current Law and The Solution

Under President Bush, families making over $1 million annually got an average tax break of $128,000-while the income of typical families declined by nearly $1,500. This plan will redress this imbalance, providing tax reform that benefits lower- and middle-income families.

More pro-growth. This Tax Reform will help make work pay for lower-incomes parents while lowering marginal tax rates that provide a disincentive for millions of taxpayers to work. Studies consistently find that the EITC provides a major incentive for work and a way to pay for childcare, transportation and other costs associated with getting a job.

* According to one study, more than 60 percent of the increase in the employment of single mothers has been due to expansions of the EITC. Bruce Meyer and Dan Rosenbaum find that 63 percent of the change in the employment of single mothers between 1984 and 1996 can be explained by the expansions of the EITC.13

* Another study predicted that the 1993 EITC expansion will induce 516,000 families to move from welfare to work. Stacy Dickert, Scott Houser, and John Karl Scholz found that the 1993 EITC expansion will induce 516,000 families to move from welfare to work. [14]

* Another study shows that increasing the reward to work, increases labor force participation. Nada Eissa and Jeffrey Liebman found that the EITC significantly increases labor force participation among single mothers, especially less educated women.15

Deficit neutral. Reforming the tax code should not be an excuse to increase the deficit. The Tax Reform will be fully paid for, simplifying and improving the tax code without increasing the deficit.

Background on Families Struggling to Get By

The best-off Americans have the highest share of income since Herbert Hoover was President. The top 0.1 percent of American families get 7.4 percent of the income (not including capital gains) - the highest share of income since 1928.16

The typical family's income declined by nearly $1,500 under President Bush, compared to a $7,200 increase under President Clinton. Under President Clinton, family income rose from $45,940 in 1992 to $53,142 in 2000 - a $7,202 increase. Under President Bush the typical family's income fell to $51,680 in 2002 - a $1,461 decrease.17

From 1970 to 2000 incomes for middle-class families stagnated while incomes for the best off exploded. The average inflation-adjusted income for the bottom 90 percent of Americans fell 2 percent from 1970 to 2000, while the average inflation-adjusted income for the top 0.1 percent rose 357 percent (not counting capital gains).18

* Nearly 3 million private-sector jobs lost. The economy has lost nearly 3 million private-sector jobs under President Bush, including 2.6 million manufacturing jobs - with manufacturing job loss each and every month under President Bush.19

* Health insurance premiums up $2,630. The typical family's health insurance premium has risen by $2,630 between 2000 and 2003 - a 41 percent increase.20

* Record personal bankruptcies - growing 7.8 percent in 2003. Personal bankruptcies grew 7.8 percent in FY 2003 to over 1.6 million - the highest number of filings on record.21

* Half of personal bankruptcies are due to health care costs. A study by Jeanne Lambrew found that "about half of all Americans who file for personal bankruptcy protection do so because of health care costs."22

[1] William Gale and Janet Holtzblatt, 1997, "On the Possibility of a No-return Tax System," National Tax Journal.

[2] Jeffrey Liebman, 1/04/03, "Preliminary Estimate of the Effects of General Wesley Clark's Tax Reform Proposal."

[3] Jeffrey Liebman, 1/04/03, "Preliminary Estimate of the Effects of General Wesley Clark's Tax Reform Proposal."

[4] Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey.

[5] Based on Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003, Employer Health Benefits: 2003.

[6] http://www.nhhfa.org/programdocs/2003rentsurvey_state.pdf.

[7] Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 9/30/03, "Combined Effect of EGTRRA and JGTRRA: Distribution of Income Tax Change by AGI Class, Pre-EGTRRA Baseline, 2004."

[8] Joint Committee on Taxation, 5/13/03, "Estimated Budget Effects of the ÔJobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003,' Scheduled for Consideration by the Committee on Finance on May 13, 2003."

[9] Rahm Emanuel, 10/15/03, "Democrats Can Win on Taxes," "Wall Street Journal.

[10] Len Burman and Deborah Kobes, 1/18/2002, Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Policy Note, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/commentary/eitc_gao.cfm.

[11] Internal Revenue Service, 8/3/03, "Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Program Effectiveness and Program

Management FY 2002 - FY 2003."

[12] David Ellwood and Jeffrey Liebman, 2001, "The Middle-class Parent Penalty: Child Benefits in the U.S. Tax Code," Tax Policy and the Economy.

[13] Bruce Meyer and Dan Rosenbaum, September 1999, "Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Labor Supply of Single Mothers." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7363.

[14] Stacy Dickert, Scott Houser, and John Karl Scholz, 1995, "The Earned Income Tax Credit and Transfer Programs: A Study of Labor Market and Program Participation." Tax Policy and the Economy.

[15] Nada Eissa and Jeffrey Liebman, 1996, "Labor Supply Response and the Earned Income Tax Credit," Quarterly Journal of Economics.

[16] Calculations based on data from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, originally in "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998," NBER Working Paper No. 8467. Available at http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/.

[17] Calculations based on Census Bureau data.

[18] Calculations based on data from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, originally in "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998," NBER Working Paper No. 8467. Available at http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/.

[19] Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

[20] Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003, Employer Health Benefits: 2003.

[21] American Bankruptcy Institute, 11/14/03, "Personal Bankruptcy Filings Continue to Break Records."

[22] Jeanne Lambrew, November 2001, "How the Slowing U.S. Economy Threatens Employer-based Health Insurance," Commonwealth Fund.

Okay, this is not a plan I came up with. This was General Wesley Clark's plan announced during his 2004 Presidential run. It remains a great plan.

< In Praise of Unanimity: Awadallah Acquitted | 3 Guantanamo Detainees Freed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's been a while (4.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Donna Z on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:30:36 PM EST
    I haven't seen this tax program for a long time. Thanks for remembering that it existed.

    The other day (don't remember what interview) Wes Clark returned to an idea he has regarding a dept/cabinet position focused on preventing failed states from becoming rogue states and thus attempting to avoid the need for use of force. Let's say that the world recognized a corrupt government needing assistance with better over sight or whatever. Without guns, we can offer help with stabilizing the government before trouble begins. Afghanistan is a good example: until poppy growing is replaced by a viable economic base, those troops can fight on forever. Strangely enough it is the MIC that the left rails against, that would hate a Clark win.

    I saw him a couple of weeks ago; he was beaming. Will he enter the fray? Well, who knows. He must see the Hillary deck getting higher by the minute.

    Again thanks for posting this tax plan, and thanks for building this forum.

    yes, i remember this (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:19:06 PM EST
    while it has some potential, it also requires significant work, before it could even be considered.

    a couple of items left out, either by design or accident:

    1. FICA: most married couples, grossing 30k or less, with two children, pay little if any income tax. however, they do pay FICA. at approx. 7.8%, that's another $2,340 a year. this isn't addressed. it should be.

    2. Estate Tax: taxes, for the most part, previously untaxed appreciation of capital assets. Those assets are then given a "stepped-up" basis, in the hands of the heirs, for future capital gains purposes. not addressed. it should be. actually impacts around 1% of all estates.


    Simplified and Equitable? (3.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Red Hog on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 07:17:10 AM EST
    I love this idea but can you imagine Congress entertaining an idea that the greatest wealth accumulators, aka campaign contributors, will strongly oppose?  I believe significant tax reform is a pipe dream until we get campaign and lobby reform.  Visit www.just6dollars.org for a good place to start!

    A better solution (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 07:21:15 AM EST
    Would be to get rid of the income tax altogether and use a value added tax on end user goods.  Buy a Lexus, pay more in taxes than buying a Honda civic.  

    That's regressive taxation (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 07:38:37 AM EST
    Poor people will still pay an inequitable share of their income compared to the wealthy.  And the wealthy can simply say, fine, we ain't buying, thus starving the democracy of funds whenever they feel like it.  

    We still cannot bring ourselves to simply accept reality -- the greater your wealth, the greater you financial responsibility to your country.  Our whole economic system is geared to, again, inequitably rewarding the few rather than being equitable to the many.  If we simply rewarded the few a bit less, that's all, we would go a long way to learning the lessons our mamas taught us: to share and to understand the concept of "enough".

    Parent

    I agree but would put it differently (3.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Mike on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 08:25:24 AM EST
    Our whole economic system is geared to, again, inequitably rewarding the few rather than being equitable to the many.  If we simply rewarded the few a bit less, that's all, we would go a long way to learning the lessons our mamas taught us: to share and to understand the concept of "enough".

    I would state it as "If we simply took advantage of that fact we would go a long way...

    Parent
    Holy socialism (none / 0) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    So fairness is taking money earned by the sweat of ones brow and giving it to another person?  What is the incentive for one to try to better one's status if they pay no taxes and receive someone else's money?  Got to be a little give and take.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#15)
    by aw on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 05:05:37 PM EST
    Collecting stock options and dividend checks is hot work.  Whew!

    On the other hand, you just said the magic words: a little give and take.  I thought that's what this plan was.

    Parent

    I wish (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:04:50 PM EST
    I wish, I wish, I wish Wesley Clark would run again.

    This sounds great, along with the... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    ...things mentioned by Donna, Dadler, and cpinva, which I believe would add some additional value to an already excellent plan. I'm not quite sure about the estate tax, which, as cpinva points out actually only affects 1% of estates.

    I think we've already given WAY too much to the super-rich, it does NOT affect small family-anything, much less farms as republicans like to claim-and the country direly needs Paris Hilton's extra taxes to help pay down the debt.

    It's is also necessary, IMO, to look at how we got here, and there's a question I've always wanted to ask an attorney (this may be a good one for you, Gabriel): When a body of laws, such as a tax code that fills a bookshelf, is composed of many, many thousands of pages of rules, exception, shelters, tax breaks, penalties, etc, BECOMES SO COMPLEX IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN ALONE TO DETERMINE HIS DUTIES UNDER THAT CODE and they must, perforce hire experts at their expense to have any hope of compliance because the code is incomprehensible without YEARS of dedicated study, (very onerous indeed), could a case be made that the code is itself unconstitutional and thus, unenforceable?

    It just seems unjust to me that a government could pass so many laws with PENALTIES for non-compliance that are on their face incomprehensible to anyone but an attorney with training in that field. Where is there ANY consideration of the least among us in a policy such as we currently have?

    That's why I so favor the total scrapping of the tax code for a program such as above, making it easy enough that John and Jane Public with their average eighth-grade education can read the simple three-line form, understand it, and comply relying only on their own comprehension, without expending precious resources to do so.

    Of course, I have always believed that every law should be understandable by at least 90% of a society without having to resort to an attorney or the law is clearly biased in favor of the rich who can afford legions of attorneys.

    Any takers on this question? Gabriel?

    redistributing wealth (none / 0) (#10)
    by davidinct on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    if you are of the opinion that it is 'justified' to redistribute wealth, then at least create a tax system that does that.  tax wealth and not income.  
    if someone starts the year with a net worth of zero, and then earns $100,000, it makes no sense to remove some large percentage of that, while leaving someone who has a net worth of a billion dollars with no taxes as long as they convert no assets to taxable income.

    stocks, bonds, cash, and real estate represent the vast majority of wealth in the country and would be relatively easy to tax.  the efficiency alone in this kind of an approach would return huge benefits to the economy.

    also the conversation of 'appropriate' rates should take place absent where the funding would go.  once it was determined what the 'fair' rates of wealth taxation would be, then a separate political process could be about how to allocate the monies collected.  the current method of intertwining the two leads to massive corruption and a never ending spiral towards more taxation and spending which inevitably leads to black market economies and the loss intellectual capital towards countries with more favorable tax regimes.

    It's a good idea (none / 0) (#17)
    by aw on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 05:16:43 PM EST
    but wouldn't there still be a problem with the gazillions that are stashed offshore?

    Parent
    Death tax (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    I'm not quite sure about the estate tax, which, as cpinva points out actually only affects 1% of estates.

    My dad lives in NJ. He has a home now worth about 500K and about 400K in stocks and bonds.

    He is very fortunate, but not unusual I don't think for someone who's 83, was in his 70's before he bought his first new car, scrimped and saved and worked his whole friggin' life.

    The money he earned that he used to buy the house and stocks was already taxed, very heavily, when he earned it. He then paid add'l taxes on the house every one of the past 34 years. Any stock profits have already been taxed.

    NJ retains its 675K death tax asset limit. He's setting up legal residence in Delaware.

    1% of estates? My aunt fanny.

    Wow, this was an eye-opener. I... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    ...guess it depends of "what your definition of 1% is" as they say.

    I have always read that the first $2,000,000.00 (per person, so 4-mil for a couple) was exempt from the tax completely and that it was the tax on the amount over that that was very high.

    And, of course everybody (almost) pays way too much in taxes on income, just to be taxed and taxed again like your Dad. It sucks.

    We could be talking two different animals though, because you specify a STATE limit while I was addressing the FEDERAL limits, eh?

    Still sucks, either way.

    Parent

    Classicism (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. . . . The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980.

    And America's lower and middle classes are wealthier and live better now than at any time in our history.

    Really? (4.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    Where did you hear that sarc....are you factoring in that a large percentage of the middle class has 2 incomes now, as opposed to one 40 years ago.  So the work a family provides society is doubled, while compensation is stagnant or less.

    The quality of life might not be suffering...yet, because a family is working double.  But the percentage of wealth is down, with quality of life to follow I'd surmise.  In another 40 years, will the middle/lower class be sending their 9 year old kids back to work a la 1900 to get by?  

    Parent

    Then (3.00 / 1) (#16)
    by aw on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    why all the worry about the shrinking middle class?  How is it better with wages stagnant for so many years now?  How is it better with more than 40 million who don't have health insurance?  How is it better with jobs disappearing?

    Seems to me that statement was true once, but now...

    Parent

    Everything is relative (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:58:12 PM EST
    You're right, but there's more at play than absolute standard of living.  Wealth is power, and power is relative.  As the upper class gets a bigger share of the wealth, they get more power over the lower classes.  That's independent of how big the lower classes' houses are, or what they eat for dinner.

    I'm still digesting, and probably badly explaining, the above.  This book described it well enough to click with me, despite my corporate credentials.

    Parent

    First The Payroll Tax (none / 0) (#19)
    by terry hallinan on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:41:58 PM EST
    The Social Security tax does more than any other tax to burden the lowest-paid workers and move benefits to the better off.  The advantages of doing so are not immediately apparent.

    In no way does that mean society should cut the aged adrift.  It does mean the farcical nature of the funding should be addressed.

    I guess General Clark didn't notice.

    I bet Webb understands the problem.

    Best,  Terry