non partisan proposal response

I like the tenor of your proposal, but I would be interested in two tweaks: (1) Why should Brian Urlacher or your favorite CEO pay lower payroll taxes than you or I? I never liked the regressive nature of payroll taxes. Why limit the income level that is taxed? I would eliminate the cap and use extra revenues to fund the private accounts, with any extra going to reducing the overall taxation level. (2) Why should any retiree (sports star, CEO, or retired speculator) who receives more than 200k/yr in passive income also receive SS benefits? I would phase out benefits (not just lower the rate of increase) for those earning over 100k (as I expect to) so that those over 200k/yr do not receive benefits. Any surplus would first fund private accounts and then go to lowering the overall tax rate. Private accounts would stay with beneficiaries regardless of income.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Captcha
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.