[kevkrom]

I know you're right, but how can you possibly explain it to economic illiterates, who, alas, constitute a majority of voters in our fair land?

One person at a time, if we have to. Just on this thread, we appear to have a few new supporters. If each of those would go out and convince a few others, and so on, we can get enough public support.

[Dementon]

Just on this thread, we appear to have a few new supporters. If each of those would go out and convince a few others, and so on, we can get enough public support.

I've become convinced from reading these threads and have been evangelizing to my friends and coworkers. Most of them seem to think it is a very good idea.

[labard1]

"Unfortunately, your next burden is how to sell your basic point to a public that lacks economic sophistication. They really believe half the social security taxes are borne by the employer. That's why Bush gave his dividend tax break (15% rate) to shareholders, rather than giving a deduction to corporations, which would be a more sensible regime under the current tax code. I know you're right, but how can you possibly explain it to economic illiterates, who, alas, constitute a majority of voters in our fair land?"

What I was saying in #92 was that you're right that the intermediary (employer, business) passes along any tax it collects, so that it's really borne by the ultimate consumer/employee. I wasn't signing on for full agreement with the proposal. (Not that my personal view matters that much anyway, except to me.)

Thinking a little more about the transition, one solution to arguments about unfairness (to the retiree with a pile of dollar bills) is to allow some period (a year?) after enactment, but before the new system comes into force. That way anyone believing himself prejudiced by the new system has an opportunity to change his position (here, to buy stuff).