cutting payroll taxes

[J Cullen]

Robert Reich argues that you could stop collecting payroll taxes on 
the first $20,000 of income, which would cost the US government $700 
billion. Congress could replace that money by repealing the estate 
tax cut, which is supposed to cost $700 billion over the next decade.


>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