Paying Social Security Taxes

Jon Forman (Commentary, Dec. 25) says it is unfair that he and Bill Gates pay exactly the same Social Security taxes. He also says it is unfair that other people, who pay less into Social Security than he, will derive a greater proportional benefit than he. He is, of course, correct on both counts. No one has ever claimed that the Social Security system treats everyone fairly.

Since Forman is concerned with fairness in our society, one might ask if he is also concerned that CEOs of giant corporations reward themselves every year with mega-million-dollar bonuses, while the workers, who create this wealth through their labor, are taking home smaller and smaller pieces of the corporate pie.

EARL CARTER

Beverly Hills

*

Forman brings up an important point: that the Social Security tax is a regressive tax, because low- and middle-income workers pay the tax on their whole income, while the wealthy pay on only a minuscule part of theirs. This is due to the cap on the amount of income taxed. The cap is $68,400 this year.

Forman suggests that the tax be cut on workers like him, “even if that means increasing taxes on income or wealth.” Sen. Ted Kennedy has called for elimination of the cap. This has already been done on the Medicare portion of the tax.

The beauty of this recommendation is that it not only corrects the regressive nature of the tax, but it would make Social Security financially sound until the year 2050, with no other changes in the system necessary.

SOL LONDE

Northridge

*

Forman argues from the wrong end of the debate regarding Social Security; it nherently unfair system to begin with. The Social Security system is a wealth redistribution scheme, not a retirement system, as Forman states. But Forman seems to like the idea of a redistribution scheme, as long as that’s what we call it. He goes on to argue that working people shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden of paying for the system, because they’re the ones least able to afford it. (Never mind the fact that they’re the ones most likely to benefit from it).

When will this philosophy of Robin Hoodism finally be tossed into the trash heap of history where it belongs? Forcibly stealing from one group of people to finance the “needs” of another group of people is not the answer to the question of Social Security. The best way to “save” Social Security is to phase it out, i.e., let current beneficiaries receive their benefits, but allow the current crop of new workers to be free of the tax altogether and everyone in between to pay in or collect through a formula that allows those who have paid into it most of their working lives to receive a proportional payback, while those just entering the work force can be free of the tax and put that money toward their own retirement, free of government force.

GREG TEEGARDEN

Studio City