From a reader:

Jonah (and Ramesh),
Resisting the knee-jerk urge to knock you for being in favor of
a tax increase — any tax increase — I’d like to ask you why you find
the idea of raising the Social Security payroll tax cap to $162,000 more
attractive than raising it on those who have truly large incomes (i.e.,
those making MORE THAN $162,000)? As someone who has been just over the
payroll tax cap for the past 5 years or so, I can testify to the
wonderful feeling in November and December, when the basic FICA
deduction disappears from my paycheck and my family enjoys a “bonus” to
help fund Christmas spending. I’m sure almost everyone making between
$90,000 and $162,000 feels similarly — we’re not filthy rich, and the
little added income at the end of the year is greatly appreciated.
Instead, why not leave the tax cap where it currently is (with
its built-in increases for the near future) and then have it kick back
in at $175,000 or $200,000 and apply to all income above that amount?
Wouldn’t that generate a good bit of income, while affecting only those
who most of us would agree qualify as truly high-income earners?
Maybe there’s a flaw in this argument, but I’m missing it.

Me: Well, what I favor is a complete zero-tax range which stops at one dollar below what I make any given year and kicks back in one dollar above what I make.

Actually, I’m sympathetic to the idea the reader offers and I agree with Ramesh. I liked Will’s column because it understood that personal accounts is worth paying a bit extra for if it will get it passed into law. The exact amount of the tax bump is something I leave to others haggle about. I think Ramesh makes a strong point that this increase as a stand alone would be too high.

That said, I’d also propose a mega-billionaire tax to be levied solely on the super-duper rich guys who opposed repeal of the death tax because they “didn’t need the money.” Their names are on file in the New York Times op-ed data bank.