Social Security System’s Flaws and Potential Fixes

Re “Bottom Line: It’s a Bad Idea,” editorial, April 27: Your editorial on President Bush’s privatization plan for Social Security is right on. But there is one missing ingredient. Something like 25% of Social Security recipients pay taxes on their Social Security payments. My wife and I together receive about $25,000 per year and about 35% of that goes back to the federal government in the form of taxes.

The tax receipts are not treated as income to the so-called trust fund. If the government started including these “paybacks” in the calculation, the so-called crisis would be pushed forward another 20 years.

By including paybacks in the mix, it would be even more apparent that privatization is only a scheme to benefit Wall Street. The economic situation is so fluid the real answer to the growing number of recipients versus workers is to keep adjusting and tweaking the system periodically.

There is no way to determine a permanent fix because the equation changes all the time. The simplest answer to keeping Social Security viable is for the government to keep an eye on the numbers and make adjustments as necessary.

Larry Booth

Santa Monica

*

The president’s proposal for reform of Social Security is flawed because it risks retirement money of workers on the fluctuations of the market. As an investor, I have seen over the years that there are periods of many years of decline. Many once-thought sterling companies have collapsed. The best solution is raising the income cap from its present $90,000 to the extent of one’s total income. This would be progressive, as is the income tax, and would enable higher-paid people to have larger retirement payments. If one wishes to invest in the market, one could have an individual retirement account.

Herbert E. Selwyn

Encino

*

If Bush and the Republican Congress were really concerned about the financial future of young people, it would be far more sensible for them to tackle the massive federal debt than tamper with Social Security. Eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy and keeping the wealth-transfer tax at traditional levels would do far more to ensure the economic future of our children and grandchildren than placing their futures in the hands of Wall Street.

Robert M. Aronin

Encinitas