You must have missed the part after the quote where Stossel sai9d ":the Times reported." That's why it was in qoutes. It was an attribution.

Ok, Lilly, I read it. What's the problem? I haven't watched Fox for some time, but I see no reason why they wouldn't show the details of the plan.

Obviously, you did not read the article.

Are you saying they did it on purpose...j/k!

No. There was a budget for the war and any amounts borrowed were added to the deficit. Now how about an intelligent remark about the content of Dr. Williams article!

Linda, did you actually read the article? It is very simple. The employer portion of the SS tax is not free. The employee has to pay for it with productivity. That's all he said.

What if the landlord has a mortgage?

RodT, Williams didn't say those nonwage benefits don't escape taxes. However while pointing out that they were generally not taxable to the employee, there is still a cost to the employee, i.e. the necessary productivity to pay for them so they can keep his or her job. Aside from that, I do believe Williams woiuld agree with your assessment that these goodies shift the tax burden to others.

Sorry, Scrap, my response was for "n." I did get your point.

You guys are making this too difficult, i.e. looking at it as a macro issue. All Williams is saying is that the employee pays the cost of non-wage benefits and taxes related to his/her employment through producitivy.