"On efficiency grounds, the money would probably be better spent reducing marginal tax rates overall or reducing the deficit."
Opinion, Not Fact. On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf > > Page 23 > > The Making Work Pay credit is intended to offset some of the > regressivity of the Social Security payroll tax and encourage > low-income people to work, but it does so at a substantial revenue > cost$728 billion over 10 years. Because most workers earn more than > $8,100 annually, most of the revenue loss would go to taxpayers who > receive no incentive to work more. A credit that was targeted more > toward low-income workers would provide a more cost-effective work > incentive. And because the phaseout of the credit increases marginal > tax rates for those workers in the phaseout range, it might actually > give those workers an incentive to work less. On efficiency grounds, > the money would probably be better spent reducing marginal tax rates > overall or reducing the deficit. > > Anything else I can help you with? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:274596 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
