Letters to the Editor: The Social Security Fairness Act restored the benefits Americans worked for

To the editor: The Social Security Fairness Act does not give windfall benefits to government workers who did not pay into the system, as contributing writer Veronique de Rugy stated (“Social Security is headed for a cliff. When will voters care?,” June 26). It restores the amount of the monthly benefit the worker receives in their monthly payment (eligibility determined by the worker paying into Social Security for the required 40 quarters) that was cut because the worker also worked for a government entity long enough to draw a pension.

I started working at 16 years of age and for the next 19 years, I had Social Security deductions taken from every paycheck. Like many working people, those deductions reduced my take-home pay, but we knew the money would be returned later via our monthly benefit upon retirement. When I applied for Social Security I was notified that due to the pension I was going to receive from my county employment, my monthly Social Security benefit was going to be cut by 50%. For the last nine years I received only half of the Social Security benefit I earned by contributing 19 years of deductions. Thanks to this legislation, which had bipartisan support, Americans are getting the benefits they worked for.

Joy Rockport, Valley Glen

..

To the editor: Before earning a clear credential in secondary English in 2002, I logged 25 years in the private sector. I give my heartfelt thanks to the Biden administration for recognizing that government workers deserve to benefit from their contributions. I sleep better knowing my retirement will be boosted by an extra $1,800 a month. It seems only fair.

Melissa Mazzei, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Several questions arise: First, is it possible that this column exaggerates the peril? As a financial professional, I have witnessed many inaccurate estimates firsthand. Second, why is the role of income inequality neglected? The enormous layer of cream at the top that contributes nothing to the Social Security system is surely worth mentioning. Even a small increase to the Social Security taxable wage base would likely have a huge impact on the projected shortfall.

Finally, the headline lays the blame at the feet of the voters. To her credit, de Rugy’s column discusses congressional inaction. Much of the public is very busy, many working multiple gigs to pay their bills. Members of Congress are paid to legislate responsibly and to take courageous stands. I ask the author: Have you correctly identified the problem?

Susan Wolfson, Glendale

..

To the editor: According to my Social Security statement, if I am collecting $4,350 a month in Social Security today, my surviving spouse and minor children can collect up to $5,900 a month, or 36% more than what I am getting while alive.

No wonder Social Security is headed for a cliff. Cap the survivor benefit to what the deceased was receiving and limit the duration.

Andrew Ko, Glendale