A pretty interesting article on a study which demonstrates the effects of Bush's tax cuts on other taxes, as well as the imbalanced effects of those tax cuts on the lower and middle classes. I'd be interested in hearing comments from conservatives to refute these points:

quote:

Shifty Tax Cuts By Sean Gonsalves AlterNet Wednesday April 2004 Little Tommy had just caught a rabbit. On his way home, walking down a dusty road carrying the furry, squirming little creature he tried to console his captured carrot-eater. "Mistah Rabbit," he said. "Pretty li'l rabbit, sweet li'l rabbit, why are you wiggling so much. I ain't gonna do nothin' but knock you upside your head an' skin an' cook ya." Attention: my dear rabbit readers, analysts at United for a Fair Economy have just released a new report called "Shifty Tax Cuts: How They Move the Tax Burden off the Rich and onto Everyone Else." Here are some of the key findings in the report. (Go to http://FairEconomy.org/ press/2004/ShiftyTaxCuts_pr.html to see the full report). * For fiscal years 2002-2004, state governments filled approximately $200 billion in budget gaps by raising state taxes and fees and by cutting services. And during those same years, newly enacted federal tax cuts delivered about as much money – $197.3 billion – in new tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent of Americans (households making more than $337,000 a year). "Had that money instead been directed to state fiscal aid, it could have prevented virtually all recent tax hikes and service cuts at the state level, which fall hardest on low- and middle-income Americans," write the report's authors. * The choice to send nearly $200 billion to the top one percent rather than to state governments underscores just one way the federal tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are actually "tax shifts," not tax cuts, for the vast majority of Americans. * Between 2000 and 2003, the United States saw a federal-to-state tax shift of historic magnitude: the share of the total tax burden borne at the state and local level jumped 15 percent. "This is the largest such shift in the tax burden since the period 1947-1950. This shift is making the tax system more regressive." Amazingly, in 2002, Americans in the bottom 20 percent of households paid 11.4 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while those in the top 1 percent paid only 5.2 percent of their income in state and local taxes – less than half the rate of the poorest fifth. * Since 1962, the share of total federal receipts collected from the regressive payroll tax, which collects proportionately more from low-income workers than high-income workers, has risen from 17 percent of total receipts to 40 percent – an increase of 135 percent. Meanwhile, the total share supplied by progressive income and corporate taxes has dropped from 63 percent of total receipts to 52 percent, which is a decline of 17 percent. * Between 1980 and now, the main tax on wage income – the payroll tax – has jumped 25 percent. In the same period, top tax rates on investment income and large inheritances have been cut between 31 percent and 79 percent. "Taxes on wealth are falling fast with shrinking taxes on capital gains, dividends and estate taxes." Oh, it gets better. * Since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals has risen 17 percent. * Current tax policies are fueling the national debt, imposing an average $13,000 in additional debt on each man, woman and child in America between 2002 and 2007 -or more than $52,000 in added debt per family of four. * During the summer of 2003, millions of parents received $400-per-child checks from the IRS – an advance payment for the expanded federal child tax credit. But, at the same time, many of those same parents saw their local and state taxes increase. Some will consider this a propaganda piece encouraging class warfare. Call it what you want. As billionaire Warren Buffet points out, "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." Let them eat rabbit! http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18483

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

So taxes are shifting from the federal government to states and local municipalities where taxes should be levied. Who better to assess the needs of the community and determine your tax burden than the state as opposed to a centralized body in Washington DC? Sounds like you have a problem with how states are taxing their citizens ... so instead of taking the issue up with the federal government why not direct it to where it should go to ... the states. Are you saying the republicans banded together, analyzed all state taxation systems, and concluded that the way to shift the tax burden to the poor is by lowering federal taxes and grants to the states? By the way ... it's nice to see you arguing for a cut in payroll taxes for a change! I agree 100%!!! The sooner we do away with the black hole of government taxed and funded social security and medicare the better!

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 A pretty interesting article on a study which demonstrates the effects of Bush's tax cuts on other taxes, as well as the imbalanced effects of those tax cuts on the lower and middle classes. I'd be interested in hearing comments from conservatives to refute these points:

Oh come on, Opus! It's the weekend, have a beer.

Honestly, after a long-ass week I just don't have it in me to answer this right now--I'll get back to you later.

I'll just say a lot depends on how a writer frames the article. It's one thing to read the facts, it's another to take the author's commentary at face value.

For instance, he says the system is becoming "more regressive". More regressive than what? I think the correct term should be "less progressive", and to that I would say, big deal! Everyone knows the wealthiest citizens in American society pay the lionshare of the tax bill with the left constantly shouting that the rich should pay more. Usually it's more about class warfare and vote buying than anything. The system in place is currently progressive. In order to get more regressive, it must first cross the fulcrum point at a flat tax rate.



Wow. I just went back and read a little more of the article and saw the author's comments at the bottom. At least he acknowledges what he's doing!

Also, the left loves to argue that the government is a more efficient spender of your money than you yourself are. Don't give in to it!

Anyway, I really don't feel like engaging in a Friday night debate, rather I have a party to go to. I leave you with the well known proverb: "You can please some of the people all of the time and you can please all of the people some of the time; but you can never please all of the people all of the time.

Have a great weekend.

Last edited by Shakka on Apr-23-2004 at 22:34

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So taxes are shifting from the federal government to states and local municipalities where taxes should be levied. Who better to assess the needs of the community and determine your tax burden than the state as opposed to a centralized body in Washington DC? Sounds like you have a problem with how states are taxing their citizens ... so instead of taking the issue up with the federal government why not direct it to where it should go to ... the states. Are you saying the republicans banded together, analyzed all state taxation systems, and concluded that the way to shift the tax burden to the poor is by lowering federal taxes and grants to the states? By the way ... it's nice to see you arguing for a cut in payroll taxes for a change! I agree 100%!!! The sooner we do away with the black hole of government taxed and funded social security and medicare the better!

That's a good libertarian.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Honestly, after a long-ass week I just don't have it in me to answer this right now--I'll get back to you later.

Nor should you have to spend time responding. People drop in here, post an article, say "ha! refute this!", and go about their day. They do none of the work, and leave it all for someone else to refute it.

But to echo occrider, the state and local level are exactly where federal taxes should be levied. If you don't like it, don't blame the feds for lowering your taxes. Blame the states for raising them, while hoping no one will notice.

Low-income Americans already pay little to no taxes at the state and federal level. Frankly, they should be paying more, because then they'd realize what a raw deal those in the brackets above them get, and would actually have a stake in seeing tax policy massively overhauled.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Low-income Americans already pay little to no taxes at the state and federal level. Frankly, they should be paying more, because then they'd realize what a raw deal those in the brackets above them get, and would actually have a stake in seeing tax policy massively overhauled.

Great point. How do you sell it?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Great point. How do you sell it?

Therein lies the problem! The only way I could think of doing it would be a big push for a flat tax or a retail sales tax, and perhaps allowing exemptions for only the "poorest of the poor".

We need a system where everyone pays the same rate, so everyone has an interest in keeping taxation low. Just think - it would be the end of class warfare in every election cycle. Everyone's pays the same, and all of the speeches about how people don't "pay their fair share" go away. If you want to raise taxes, you have to do it to everyone.

For those who don't think the rich are paying their fair share, see this excerpt from ABC News:

quote:

For 1999, the most recent year for which complete Internal Revenue Service statistics are available, 6.3 million taxpayers whose incomes were in the top 5 percent paid more than 55 percent of all income taxes. They had incomes above $120,846 a year meaning two spouses could each earn a bit over $60,000 and be considered among the nation's richest.

Everytime John Kerry slams the rich, he slams my parents, who live in an area where $150k after taxes will barely pay for house payments, two car payments, and living expenses. It's sick and disgusting that they scrape to get by and have to listen to that "not paying their fair share" crap everytime they turn on the TV.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

Last edited by imokruok on Apr-24-2004 at 01:34

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Also, the left loves to argue that the government is a more efficient spender of your money than you yourself are. Don't give in to it!

See the problem I have is that I agree with you, but am unwilling to provide Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft, and Jerry Falwell with a platform to dominate the world and shred the Bill of Rights.



It's quite unfortunate that we don't have a greater choice of political parties, and that fanatics have taken over one of the major parties.

You guys must also be in the small minority of people who benefited from Bush's tax cuts, and prefer massive deficits to a balanced budget:


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040414/ap_on_re_us/taxes_ap_poll&printer=1

quote:

Poll: Balanced Budget Beats Tax Cuts Tue Apr 13,10:56 PM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo! By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - By almost a 2-1 margin, Americans prefer balancing the nation's budget to cutting taxes, according to an Associated Press poll, even though many believe their overall tax burden has risen despite tax cuts over the past three years. About six in 10, 61 percent, chose balancing the budget while 36 percent chose tax cuts when they were asked which was more important, according to a poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos Public Affairs. As the nation's tax deadline of April 15 approaches, people's lukewarm feeling about tax cuts may be influenced by a belief that recent cuts haven't helped them personally. Half in the poll, 49 percent, said their overall tax burden — including federal, state and local taxes — had gone up over the past three years. That's almost four times the 13 percent in the poll who said their overall taxes had gone down. "Every time you turn around, there's a new gasoline tax, more property taxes, a library tax — because they don't have enough money," said Tom Artley, a 52-year-old supervisor at a manufacturing plant in Williamsport, Pa. He was referring to increasing financial problems faced by many cities and states. "I'd like to retire in the next five years," Artley said. "It's scary for people like me who are going to be living on a fixed income." Even when it comes to federal taxes, most in the public don't feel their taxes have gone down over the past three years. Twenty-five percent in the poll said their federal taxes had gone up during that time, while 43 percent said they had stayed the same. Among those most likely to say their taxes had gone down were the wealthy and investors. Both the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation and the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have come to the conclusion that the federal tax burden is easing for the average American family. The Tax Foundation suggests that federal income taxes are lower for Americans than they have been for almost four decades. The perception of many that they're paying more overall is no surprise to Iris Lav, deputy director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Federal tax cuts largely benefit higher income people," Lav said. "In the meantime, people face tax increases on sales, cigarettes, gasoline." For 73-year-old Bonnie Shoemaker of Fort Morgan, Colo., the choice between tax cuts and balancing the budget is a tough one. "We all need money to live on," she said. "But I think we ought to concentrate on balancing the budget." Opinion was mixed on whether the wealthiest Americans should have to give up the tax cuts they've gotten over the past three years. Just over half, 53 percent, said they want the elimination of recent tax cuts for people who earn more than $200,000 a year, while 45 percent said they want those cuts to remain in place. The presidential campaign has included plenty of debate between President Bush (news - web sites) and Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) about taxes and balanced budgets. More of the poll respondents thought Kerry would raise taxes than believed Bush would, 51 percent to 34 percent. Bush has been pushing cuts since his first campaign for president in 2000. Some see tax cuts as the best way to improve the economy and — eventually — to balance the budget. "If I had to choose, I would pick cutting taxes," said Marta Mitzenmacher of Miami, a budget director for a community college. "I think the more money I have in my pocket, the more that circulates in the economy, and that puts more money back into government." The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults was taken March 19-21 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. ___ On the Net: Ipsos: http://www.ipsos.com/ap

Last edited by DaveSZ on Apr-24-2004 at 06:49

I think if Bush wants to make political hay off his tax cuts, it will probably only work on fewer than he thinks.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/15/new...tion_moneypoll/

quote:

Money poll: Tax cuts unpopular Most want jobs program and deficit reduction. Some 60% say they didn't benefit from tax cut. April 15, 2004: 11:28 AM EDT NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Most Americans don't believe they benefited personally from the 2003 tax cut, according to a poll conducted for Money magazine, and would have preferred the government devoted resources to job creation or deficit reduction. The poll of 1,007 people, conducted last week by International Communications Research, found that 60 percent said the tax cut did not personally help them. Only about a third of respondents said they benefited from the tax cut. The poll also found Americans badly split along partisan lines on the question of whether the tax cut helped the economy. It found 79 percent of Republicans believed the tax cuts were somewhat or very successful in stimulating the economy, while 65 percent of Democrats said the cuts were not too successful or not at all successful. Independents were more evenly divided but overall skeptical of the tax cut's help to the economy, with 43 percent saying the cuts were very or somewhat successful and 52 percent saying they were not too successful or not successful at all. Overall 48.4 percent thought the tax cuts were very or somewhat helpful stimulating the economy, while 45.1 percent felt they were not at all or not too successful stimulating the economy. The poll found 76 percent of those surveyed would have preferred the government devote resources to job creation rather than the tax cut, and even 54 percent of Republicans would have chosen jobs over tax cuts. Democrats, at 89 percent, and independents at 83 percent were overwhelmingly in favor of jobs programs rather than tax cuts. A plurality of Americans also would have preferred deficit reduction over the tax cut, with 49 percent choosing deficit reduction and only 42 percent picking the cut. While a majority of Republicans would have chosen tax cuts over deficit reduction, Democrats picked deficit reduction by a two-to-one margin, while 49 percent of independents would have preferred reducing the federal deficit. Asked who would do a better job managing the economy, 41.4 percent of registered voters surveyed chose President Bush, narrowly edging out Democratic challenger John Kerry at 37.7 percent. That was just beyond the poll's 3.1 percent margin of error. A 51 percent majority said their own economic circumstance is the same as it was a year ago, while 27 percent said their own situation is better and 21 percent said it was worse. Among those who identified themselves as investors, 45 percent said their own financial condition was about the same as a year ago, despite the rise in U.S. stock markets during that time. Meanwhile 37.3 percent said they were better off while only 17.4 percent said they were worse off.

Last edited by DaveSZ on Apr-24-2004 at 07:06

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Nor should you have to spend time responding. People drop in here, post an article, say "ha! refute this!", and go about their day. They do none of the work, and leave it all for someone else to refute it.

I'd like to apologize for my absence on this particular thread. Last week was my vacation (the first in 3 years), and Friday I actually had some free time to screw around on the CPU with the intention of engaging in a good debate. Things took a turn for the worse from late Fri. afternoon on, and the rest of the weekend went straight downhill. I should have just listened to Shakka and had a beer (or two or three). If there is a listing of a person's personal life's worse events, I'd say this weekend was probably the 2nd or 3rd worst ever, very closely behind me witnessing my wife getting in a serious car accident and shattering her hip. In short, my weekend sucked donkey balls, so I do apologize again for my absence and I'll leave it at that.

I must admit, however, that I initially took issue with your particular statement of generalizing me as a post and run type of individual. I would hope that I have been here long enough, and have posted enough times to exhibit the exact opposite behavior, though admittedly there are times when I know I'm over my head (i.e. talking out of my ass) or must concede to others who have a stronger argument. I'd like to assure you that this is not one of those moments, at least not yet.

quote:

But to echo occrider, the state and local level are exactly where federal taxes should be levied. If you don't like it, don't blame the feds for lowering your taxes. Blame the states for raising them, while hoping no one will notice.

I'll save my comments here by directly answering Occ below.

quote:

Low-income Americans already pay little to no taxes at the state and federal level. Frankly, they should be paying more, because then they'd realize what a raw deal those in the brackets above them get, and would actually have a stake in seeing tax policy massively overhauled.

I'm sorry, but what the hell is this? Low income people need to pay more taxes so they can get an understanding of what a "raw deal" is to pay higher taxes? Umm, don't you think that lower income individuals have enough of a frickin' "raw deal" in life as it is, and then you have the audacity want to bitch-slap them with more taxes? I mean, they are lower class, right? Isin't that enough of a "raw deal" for you? And as the article I posted exhibits, they are already paying a disproportionate amount relative to their own income compared to the upper class as it is. But that isin't good enough?

Wow, all I can say is "wow".

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2004 at 16:19

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So taxes are shifting from the federal government to states and local municipalities where taxes should be levied. Who better to assess the needs of the community and determine your tax burden than the state as opposed to a centralized body in Washington DC? Sounds like you have a problem with how states are taxing their citizens ... so instead of taking the issue up with the federal government why not direct it to where it should go to ... the states.

Now I know you have a libertarian stance on this particular issue, but I cannot possibly concede to having the tax burden being completely shifted to the states, as you seem to have suggested. You probably have guessed that I believe it is our duty as citizens to pay taxes both on the state and federal level in order to uphold certain policies and systems that everyone on all income levels should have equal access to. I will admit, however, that I'm not educated enough to give specifics on where to draw the line on how much we should pay the state versus the federal level. But what is clear, however, is something that I have been pointing out from the get go about Bush's tax cuts - it will squeeze the states and will effect the lower income bracket in a disproportionate manner.

That is discriminatory, deliberately or undeliberately. As this article suggests, it ultimately effects lower income folks more than the financial elite. It did not mention other factors, such as the rise in college tuition across all states, which ultimately hurts lower income folks more than upper income (again). Furthermore, cuts in public education programs, which again ultimately hurts the lower income more, considering they have a greater population in the public schools. And on this particular point, I would say that I believe this is a fairly deliberate act of Bush and the Repubs., esp. when you consider they have also cut federal funds to the states at the same time, but I digress.

quote:

Are you saying the republicans banded together, analyzed all state taxation systems, and concluded that the way to shift the tax burden to the poor is by lowering federal taxes and grants to the states?

Oh yes, I certainly believe they are that diabolical!

Look, I'm happy as hell that Cheney saved over $80,000 or so in taxes this year. That makes me giddy to the point of a near orgasm, but not quite. But I don't know if even I could pin an evil plot on the ultra-conservatives like that. What I do believe, however, is that they did not listen or even want to listen to the possible consequences of their actions on this tax cut. In a strange ironic twist, it seems the only person willing to consider the consequences to their actions was Bush himself, as Paul O'Neil points out in his book (Bush: "Haven't we already given money to rich people ... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?", Rove: "Stay the course..."). Seriously, many people don't even feel the "benefits" of this tax cut as a direct result of the shift of tax burdens from the feds. to the states, as the first article of DaveSZ's points out, and it's why more people are not so concerned about taxes as they are about jobs, as Dave's second article suggests. Furthermore, the lower income people feel the consequences even more, as my article points out (and what I've pointed out in the past).

quote:

By the way ... it's nice to see you arguing for a cut in payroll taxes for a change! I agree 100%!!! The sooner we do away with the black hole of government taxed and funded social security and medicare the better!

I'm not for a cut in payroll taxes per se, and I have to say that's rather clever of you to attempt to point this out. Let's look at the article:

quote:

* Since 1962, the share of total federal receipts collected from the regressive payroll tax, which collects proportionately more from low-income workers than high-income workers, has risen from 17 percent of total receipts to 40 percent – an increase of 135 percent. Meanwhile, the total share supplied by progressive income and corporate taxes has dropped from 63 percent of total receipts to 52 percent, which is a decline of 17 percent.

While it does show that payroll taxes are harsher towards the low-income workers, it is making a comparison with the second paragraph, which refers to corporate taxes. The comparison is that while corporate taxes have dropped, thereby giving back more money to the corporation, payroll taxes have increased, giving the low-income worker less money even though the corporation is saving more money. And with this comparison, I must agree with the author's criticism by pointing this out.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Apr-26-2004 at 16:20

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now I know you have a libertarian stance on this particular issue, but I cannot possibly concede to having the tax burden being completely shifted to the states, as you seem to have suggested. You probably have guessed that I believe it is our duty as citizens to pay taxes both on the state and federal level in order to uphold certain policies and systems that everyone on all income levels should have equal access to. I will admit, however, that I'm not educated enough to give specifics on where to draw the line on how much we should pay the state versus the federal level. But what is clear, however, is something that I have been pointing out from the get go about Bush's tax cuts - it will squeeze the states and will effect the lower income bracket in a disproportionate manner. That is discriminatory, deliberately or undeliberately. As this article suggests, it ultimately effects lower income folks more than the financial elite. It did not mention other factors, such as the rise in college tuition across all states, which ultimately hurts lower income folks more than upper income (again). Furthermore, cuts in public education programs, which again ultimately hurts the lower income more, considering they have a greater population in the public schools. And on this particular point, I would say that I believe this is a fairly deliberate act of Bush and the Repubs., esp. when you consider they have also cut federal funds to the states at the same time, but I digress.

Well obviously I'm not calling for an abolishment of all federal taxes, what I'm calling for is a reduction in federal taxes such that proceeds of said tax go towards paying for federal institutions rather than state projects. If the state needs funding to pay for education, public works projects, etc., than the state should raise taxes. Why should we pay more in federal taxes to pay for pork barrell projects that other states manage to successfully lobby the federal government for? Why should we pay ANY federal tax money to states when the state can, and should, raise its own taxes if it needs to pay for something it wants? It increases accountability on the part of the state to do what's in the best interest of its citizens cost wise and benefits wise. But why is the shifting of the tax burden to states discriminatory on Bush's part? It's each state's own tax laws, they have sole discretion to alter their tax brackets to whatever they would like. Why is the state not discriminatory, and why are you not directing your criticism at the state rather than bush? The state tax structure only becomes an issue now that bush is decreasing the federal tax role? Well, if anything this should expose the inequity of our states' laws ... something that is far easier and tangible to change as opposed to federal law.

Just as an aside, I know you're arguing about the shifting of the tax burden as opposed to absolute effect, but as a clarification to others the tax cuts have not had a negative effect (even taking into account state taxes) so far:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=100
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/fsl2004.pdf

quote:

Oh yes, I certainly believe they are that diabolical!

What's the matter? You never took my cheapshots so seriously before!

quote:

Look, I'm happy as hell that Cheney saved over $80,000 or so in taxes this year. That makes me giddy to the point of a near orgasm, but not quite. But I don't know if even I could pin an evil plot on the ultra-conservatives like that. What I do believe, however, is that they did not listen or even want to listen to the possible consequences of their actions on this tax cut. In a strange ironic twist, it seems the only person willing to consider the consequences to their actions was Bush himself, as Paul O'Neil points out in his book (Bush: "Haven't we already given money to rich people ... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?", Rove: "Stay the course..."). Seriously, many people don't even feel the "benefits" of this tax cut as a direct result of the shift of tax burdens from the feds. to the states, as the first article of DaveSZ's points out, and it's why more people are not so concerned about taxes as they are about jobs, as Dave's second article suggests. Furthermore, the lower income people feel the consequences even more, as my article points out (and what I've pointed out in the past).

So once again this is a job for states to remedy. If the majority of people do not want reform or don't care enough to actively support reform than what can you do?

quote:

I'm not for a cut in payroll taxes per se, and I have to say that's rather clever of you to attempt to point this out. Let's look at the article: While it does show that payroll taxes are harsher towards the low-income workers, it is making a comparison with the second paragraph, which refers to corporate taxes. The comparison is that while corporate taxes have dropped, thereby giving back more money to the corporation, payroll taxes have increased, giving the low-income worker less money even though the corporation is saving more money. And with this comparison, I must agree with the author's criticism by pointing this out.

It's a comparison that shouldn't even be made. Those are two completely different taxes that are funding two completely different purposes. The payroll tax solely contributes to social security and medicare and only taxes workers. It does not go anywhere else, and it's always going to go up, regardless of what an administration wants to do, with the way medicare and social security are structured. Therefore, one can ALWAYS unfairly criticize ANY decrease in ANY type of tax other than the payroll tax as shafting the worker because, simply put, no one is going to decrease that particular tax which is an individual entity in itself so to speak.

For example:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...a.ap/index.html

Bush wants to do away with the internet access tax and extend it to broadband. It is by default bad to remove such a tax however, since it comes at the expense of workers because of the increased payroll tax.

___________________
Retro ...