WaPo's Charles Lanes correctly points out:
The irony is that the progressive plan [of Elizabeth Warren] and [Chris] Christie’s plan are equivalent, at least in their very broad financial strokes. Both claim to match Social Security resources and obligations over time, and to accomplish this progressively; that is, with upper-income folks bearing a relatively higher share of the adjustment costs.Christie, for example, has said that he would means-test benefits on people with income above $80,000 with the idea of phasing out all benefits for people with incomes over $200,000. Pretty much in line with Warren's "take from the rich and disperse" advocacy.
-RW
How come there's never a "phase out" of the taxes I paid for 50 years. FIFTY years. Some "insurance"! Argh!
ReplyDelete