O.C. Elderly Wary of President’s Tax Plans : Seniors: 4 in 5 feel financially secure, poll shows, but many are concerned about suggested higher levy on Social Security benefits.

Even though Republicans vastly outnumber Democrats in Laguna Hills Leisure World, residents of the retirement community who were frustrated with George Bush’s handling of the economy swarmed to the polls last November and gave a winning margin to Bill Clinton.

Now that their man is in office, however, many of those Clinton supporters have been given some pause by the President’s suggestion that Social Security recipients might pay a higher tax rate to help reduce the federal deficit.

“I think a lot of us here in Leisure World are reasonable and we don’t want to jump to any conclusions,” said Columba Kaufman, a Democrat who backed Clinton. “Right now, a lot of the seniors I talk to are willing to go along with it, but there is still a group that is very concerned they will be harder hit.”

But even some of those who voted for Clinton are dismayed. Beatrice Neuss, 70, who gets by on Social Security and an annuity left by her late husband, said she is not happy with the President’s proposal for higher taxes on benefits.

“I knew that Clinton would make a lot of promises he couldn’t keep--he had to,” she said. “But I thought he was just going to tax the wealthy. . . . He has not proven himself to me.”

A recent Times Poll of Orange County senior citizens found that more than four in five describe themselves as “financially secure”--a higher percentage than any other age category in the county.

The poll, which contacted 1,128 adult residents of Orange County over four days in December, also indicated that any tinkering with Social Security would be closely watched by seniors because 93% of those over age 65 said they are recipients.

The area’s affluence is likely to mean that if the President targets upper-income Social Security recipients, Orange County would feel a heavier impact than most areas of the country.

But many seniors also say they are willing to share the burden if it is distributed fairly. And compared to most areas, a higher percentage of Orange County’s elderly are financially capable of absorbing a higher tax.

In the poll, about seven in 10 named Social Security as one of their primary sources of income, along with investments, pensions or salaries. That number decreased slightly among those with annual incomes over $30,000, but a majority of them cited Social Security as a primary revenue.

The poll, conducted by Times pollster John Brennan, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Although final details of the President’s economic agenda are still being debated within Clinton’s inner circle, he is widely expected to include a proposal to increase the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation.

Under present law, Social Security recipients pay no income taxes on their benefits unless their total annual income, after adjustments, exceeds $25,000 for individuals and $32,000 for couples. For those recipients, up to 50% of benefits may be subject to taxation.

Clinton will ask Congress to leave the income thresholds unchanged, but to increase the amount of benefits subject to taxation to 85%. That would make the taxation of Social Security benefits roughly comparable to the current tax treatment of private pensions for which employees make contributions.

If such a tax plan is proposed by Clinton tonight, White House officials said, it would be applicable to about 20% of the nation’s Social Security recipients. In Orange County, however, census figures indicate that portion might be higher.

The average income for an Orange County resident over the age of 60 was nearly $25,000--about 20% higher than the average statewide. At the same time, about 63% of the county’s households headed by a person over age 65 claimed annual incomes of less than $35,000.

In a county famous for its conservative politics and tight wallets, it remains to be seen whether the President might touch off a firestorm by tapping Social Security for higher taxes. Tuesday, several seniors and their advocates in Orange County said they are willing to wait and hear Clinton’s plan.

“Let’s wait and see,” said Nettie Korman, a Laguna Hills resident who voted for Clinton. “We’re hurting; but we’re not hurting from him. We’re hurting from 12 years of Republicans.”

Janice Back, a county research analyst with the Area Agency on Aging, also said it was too soon to forecast the impact of the President’s plan on Orange County’s elderly.

“As soon as we can find something definite, we can comment more,” she said. “All we can say is that we would hope older persons are not singled out to carry the burden disproportionately.”

Firm Foundation

A substantial number of county residents 60 and older report they are on solid financial ground. More than eight in 10 describe their personal finances as secure. Very secure: 27% Fairly secure: 57% Fairly shaky: 9% Very shaky: 7% Source: Los Angeles Times Poll

Health, not Wealth, Is the Fear

Orange County’s elderly, a small slice of the total population, are more concerned with possible health problems than with financial strictures.

*

Adequate Retirement

Three out of four of those 60 and older say their savings, investments, pension and Social Security will be sufficient for retirement. Sufficient income for retirement: 75% Insufficient income for retirement: 21% Don’t know: 4% *

Biggest Fear

Among those 60 and older, declining health is easily the biggest anxiety connected with aging. Declining health: 40% Lack of mobility: 13% Burden to family: 10% Financial insecurity: 9% Loneliness: 4% No fears: 30% Other: 17% Don’t know: 1% Note: Total adds to more than 100% due to multiple responses

*

How many, how much?

Orange County residents aged 65 and older make up about one-tenth of the county’s total population. And in households headed by the same, most incomes fall below $35,000.

Age Less than 30 years: 47% 30-44: 26% 45-64: 18% 65 and older: 9% *

Household income Less than $35,000: 63% $35,000-49,999: 15% $50,000-74,999: 12% $75,000-99,999: 5% $100,000 and more: 5% Source: Los Angeles Times Poll; U.S. Census