Letters to the Editor: Social Security wasn’t created to supplement the incomes of the rich

To the editor: I strongly disagree with Veronique de Rugy’s proposed approach to Social Security (“This next batch of elected senators will decide the fate of Social Security,” July 16). As a libertarian economist associated with pro-free-market organizations such as the Mercatus Center, she advocates reforms that, in my view, would weaken one of America’s most successful anti-poverty programs.

Rather than cutting benefits, I believe Congress should consider a three-part approach to strengthen Social Security:

Preserve the contributions of law-abiding immigrant workers. Many immigrants who work, pay payroll taxes and contribute to Social Security and Medicare may never be eligible to collect benefits themselves. Their payroll tax contributions help strengthen these programs and should be recognized as part of the solution.

Raise the income ceiling subject of Social Security taxes and require employers to contribute a greater share on high-income wages. At a time when many corporations can afford multimillion-dollar executive compensation packages, asking higher earners and employers to contribute more is a reasonable way to improve the program’s long-term finances.

Limit benefits for the wealthiest retirees. Individuals with annual incomes exceeding $500,000 could have their Social Security benefits fully taxed, with those tax revenues dedicated directly to the Social Security trust fund. Social Security was created to provide retirement security, not to supplement the incomes of billionaires.

Finally, Congress should establish a truly bipartisan, independent commission to evaluate reforms based on evidence rather than ideology. Its mission should be to strengthen and extend the solvency of Social Security — not undermine a program that has protected generations of Americans since it was signed into law on Aug. 14, 1935.

Lawrence Rogers, Studio City

..

To the editor: The author is correct in writing that Americans 65 and older benefit disproportionately from Social Security benefits, that Americans 35-44 pay a significant share of the tax and that Social Security benefits should focus on poverty prevention.

Unfortunately, the author feels that current and future retirees should make all of the sacrifices to fix Social Security. I recommend that all Americans vote to elect a U.S. senator who vows to end the cap on payroll taxes. The author avers that this can make up for 58% of the revenue shortfall. It is time for all Americans to participate in a realistic solution to the Social Security problem.

George Ljubenkov, San Pedro

..

To the editor: The subhead on De Rugy’s op-ed reads, “We won’t be able to tax our way out of this one, but elected officials are loath to cut voters’ benefits.” She argues that many people on Social Security have other income. According to De Rugy, the only solution is to cut benefits because Social Security is going bankrupt.

Two tax increases that many people would agree on would be to raise the employment tax rate from 6.2% to 7% and raise the taxable maximum amount from $184,500 to $1 million.

Most wage earners could live with a small tax increase and the high earners could certainly afford to, especially since most people realize the need to keep Social Security solvent.

Social Security is a lifesaver for many retired people, like myself, who failed to save for retirement.

Richard Parr, Santa Monica