To the editor: I strongly disagree with Veronique de Rugy’s proposed method to Social Safety (“This subsequent batch of elected senators will resolve the destiny of Social Safety,” July 16). As a libertarian economist related to pro-free-market organizations such because the Mercatus Middle, she advocates reforms that, for my part, would weaken certainly one of America’s most profitable anti-poverty packages.
Fairly than chopping advantages, I consider Congress ought to contemplate a three-part method to strengthen Social Safety:
Protect the contributions of law-abiding immigrant employees. Many immigrants who work, pay payroll taxes and contribute to Social Safety and Medicare might by no means be eligible to gather advantages themselves. Their payroll tax contributions assist strengthen these packages and ought to be acknowledged as a part of the answer.
Elevate the earnings ceiling topic of Social Safety taxes and require employers to contribute a larger share on high-income wages. At a time when many companies can afford multimillion-dollar government compensation packages, asking larger earners and employers to contribute extra is an inexpensive method to enhance this system’s long-term funds.
Restrict advantages for the wealthiest retirees. People with annual incomes exceeding $500,000 might have their Social Safety advantages absolutely taxed, with these tax revenues devoted on to the Social Safety belief fund. Social Safety was created to supply retirement safety, to not complement the incomes of billionaires.
Lastly, Congress ought to set up a very bipartisan, impartial fee to judge reforms primarily based on proof slightly than ideology. Its mission ought to be to strengthen and prolong the solvency of Social Safety — not undermine a program that has protected generations of People because it was signed into legislation on Aug. 14, 1935.
Lawrence Rogers, Studio Metropolis
..
To the editor: The writer is right in writing that People 65 and older profit disproportionately from Social Safety advantages, that People 35-44 pay a major share of the tax and that Social Safety advantages ought to deal with poverty prevention.
Sadly, the writer feels that present and future retirees ought to make the entire sacrifices to repair Social Safety. I like to recommend that every one People vote to elect a U.S. senator who vows to finish the cap on payroll taxes. The writer avers that this could make up for 58% of the income shortfall. It’s time for all People to take part in a sensible resolution to the Social Safety drawback.
George Ljubenkov, San Pedro
