In response to:

We Should “Reform” Payroll Taxes, but only if that Means Personal Retirement Accounts

Milt37 Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 12:37 PM
David, Since you're so good at making unfounded assumptions, let me propose a couple better founded ones: you're either a Marxist, or ecomomically illiterarte (almost the same thing). In a free-market economy, every employer has to compete for qualified employees, therefore no sane employer who wants the best employees is going to try to low-ball that employee. On the other side of your Marxist coin is the fact that the money an employer has to pay to SS, unemployment or health insurance has to be factored in the employee's total compensation. If the employer doesn't have to pay for all the govt. mandated then he has more money to pay his employees.
Milt37 Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 12:40 PM
If he's greedy, and pockets the savings, and other employers start stealing his employees away with higher salaries, then he's left with either no employees, or the bottom of the barrel workers.

That's probably too much free-market logic for an assumed Marxist/economically illiterate to absorb, but that's the real world.

Washington is filled with debate and discussion about the economic burden of the federal income tax, which collected $1.13 trillion in FY2012 ($1.37 trillion if you include the corporate income tax).

Yet politicians rarely consider the economic impact of payroll taxes, even though these levies totaled $.85 trillion during the same fiscal year.

Yes, we had a gimmicky payroll tax holiday for the past few years. And it’s true that Obama has signaled that he wants to