The Sweet Spot

Just a week ago, the Washington Post criticized Barack Obama for his proposal for refundable family tax credits, asking "Why do families making as much as $200,000 a year need new tax help?" It then went on to list a litany of benefits such families have received.

Yesterday, however, in the midst of attacking Hillary Clinton's stance on Social Security, the Post noted with approval John Edwards' proposal to fund Social Security as "a different, promising idea -- leaving the existing cap [of $97,500] in place but putting a surcharge on income over $200,000."

To the casual observer, the Edwards plan seems to pile a progressive tax rate on top of a regressive tax rate while exempting a small slice of the population from its effects.

How small? According to this table of individual incomes in 2004, men making between $97,500 and $200,000 account for only 5% of wage workers.

Reading between the lines, one gets the impression that the Post's opprobrium for Obama's plan and tepid embrace of Edwards' idea is based on the assumption that the sweet spot for taxation policy lies in cutting taxes for that 5%.

I wonder what an editorial page editor's salary is these days?