More on the regressive payroll tax from the NYT

[sally343434]

I wrote on here yesterday about my friend's taxes. On $40,000 of self-employment income, and after taking deductions, his income tax liability was $700, but his payroll tax was a whopping $6,500!

Coincidentally, the NYT has an editorial today about "fixing" social security. One of their paragraphs says:

"Currently only the first $87,900 of annual wages is subject to the Social Security payroll tax, a level that has failed to keep up with the rapid rise in earnings of our highest-paid citizens. Surely it is time to raise the taxable earnings base or even make all wages subject to the tax, as has already been done to relieve similar shortfalls in Medicare. The Social Security tax, as it stands now, is terrifically regressive. It falls hard on people whose income is too low to qualify for other federal taxation, while it is not applied at all to most of the salary and bonuses paid to the megawealthy."

HAHA. YEah, right. I can just see Dumbya doing anything that might make his cronies pay their fair share of anything.

The rest of the article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/opinion/04SUN1.html

[swinney]

1. Payroll tax is very unfair

The very wealthy pay a very very low percentage of income into payroll taxes.

Tax all their income as is done to majority and we could afford Medicare and Social Security without a problem.

Many live on $500 or less from SS.

What a great difference in the standard of living for millions were we to have a minimum of $1,000 per month in SS checks.

Little old women would not be sweeping in fast foods.

[cryofan]

2. But why hasn't Kerry said WORD ONE about this?

The regressive tax system of the USA is the main reason we are headed for thirdworldization. And what has Kerry said about it?