Isn't thsi the old Laffer curve crap, more or less undiluted? Note also that payroll taxes come from workers' salaries, not employers' profits, so that even of such taxes were elimunated, employers would have no more profits to invest, assuming of course that theyt would invest them. The proposal is just a veiled way to further undermine what is left of the welfare state in this country. jks
Marta Russell <ap888 at lafn.org> wrote:From an LA Times op-ed arguing for cutting payroll taxes to increase employment:
Payroll taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, are already universal in the bad sense of the word: For 80% of Americans, payroll taxes take the biggest bite, accounting for more than one-third of all federal revenue. Taxing payrolls kills jobs. It makes employers and workers pay an additional 15% on salary and benefits, inflating hiring costs and depressing job growth while squeezing paychecks.
Payroll tax cuts or rebates could create new jobs, reduce the regressivity of other proposed tax cuts and put more money in the pockets of low- and middle-income workers whose discretionary spending drives economic recovery.
If payroll tax disincentives were removed from hiring, the job market would afford new job opportunities for millions -- people with disabilities and everyone else. Disability employment rates and benefits funding would increase, along with the entire tax base, rescuing Social Security and Medicare funding for everyone and reducing government dependency costs arising from joblessness. snip
Didn't Steve Forbes recently suggest this? Seems to me that cutting payroll taxes would not automatically result in more jobs being added into the economy as the writer suggests. Any thoughts? Marta -- Marta Russell Los Angeles, CA http://www.disweb.org
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021215/7442e042/attachment.htm>