To the Editor:
“Want to improve Social Security? The wealthy must accept smaller checks” by Peter Coy (Opinion, nytimes.com, May 13):
It’s infuriating that the only solution conservatives propose to the Social Security Trust Fund’s woes is to cut benefits.
There are many acceptable increases that would solve the funding problems for Social Security and Medicare. By acceptable, I mean increasing the amount that high-income, wealthy people pay into the funds, without increasing the amount that working people pay.
Let me offer a few suggestions: Social Security taxes this year stop at a relatively low income level, $168,600 per year. Why not just tax all of an individual’s earned income, as Medicare already does?
As for a person’s overall income, why only tax the income “earned” for Social Security? Why not tax all income, including investment income? The truly wealthy earn most of their income from investments, not from a salary. To be fair, that income should be taxed too.
Another possibility is to have a progressive tax rather than a flat tax: the wealthy can and should pay higher SSA taxes, just as they would on ordinary income.
All of these measures would make Social Security and Medicare self-sustaining, and would only be an additional expense for the wealthy.
Peter Limon
Irasburg, Vermont
To the Editor:
Peter Coy outlines a thoughtful approach to fixing Social Security’s finances and making the system work better for American retirees. The system is complex, but the basic steps to restore balance are simple.
They need to either cut benefit payments or increase program revenues from payroll taxes and general appropriations. The problem is getting Congress to act when supporting either policy would be considered politically incorrect.
To break the gridlock and avoid the severe consequences of inaction, the Legislature should study how state governments dealt with underfunded public employee pensions after the financial crisis of 2008. Lawmakers across the political spectrum responded by increasing worker contributions, reducing cost-of-living adjustments for retirees and allocating additional tax revenues to help stabilize the systems.
While these policies, taken individually, could be criticized for political gain, they were often approved as packages with bipartisan support in states governed by Republicans and Democrats alike.
The lesson for Congress is that this approach, which prioritizes shared sacrifice across the nation and shared political risk among lawmakers, provides a roadmap for ultimately improving Social Security.
Chris McIsaac
Washington
The author is a fellow in the Governance Program at the R Street Institute, a think tank.
To the Editor:
Peter Coy’s call to transform Social Security “into a safety net for the least advantaged” misunderstands the purpose of the program. Social Security is wage insurance, designed to help people maintain their standard of living by replacing income lost through retirement, disability, or the death of the family breadwinner. Nearly all workers pay contributions and nearly all workers receive benefits.
The vast majority of Social Security recipients are not wealthy. To achieve significant savings by cutting benefits to high-income earners, we would need to define them as people with a lifetime average income of just $85,000 a year. That’s exactly what Republicans are proposing. In many parts of the country, that’s barely middle class.
Instead of cutting middle-class Social Security benefits and turning them into a poverty-level welfare system, we should require the truly wealthy — those making more than $400,000 a year — to pay their fair share.
President Biden and Democratic lawmakers have a plan to do just that: Their proposal would not only ensure benefits are paid on time and in full for the time being, but would also provide enough revenue to expand benefits.
Nancy Altman
Bethesda, Maryland
The author is president of Social Security Works.
Singapore’s view
To the Editor:
“Singapore’s wealth has grown under long rule, but so has discontent” (news article, May 16) claims that Singapore is “one of the most expensive cities in the world”, but the index you cite (published by The Economist) measures the cost of living primarily with expatriates and business travellers in mind, not Singaporeans.
Like many countries, Singapore has experienced rising inflation in recent years, but we heavily subsidize the basics of housing, healthcare and education for our citizens.
More than 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing and the majority own their homes. Nine in 10 patients pay less than $370 out of pocket for admission to a subsidized public hospital. 90% of public education costs are subsidized.
The Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, has improved over the past two decades, and redistributive policies have further reduced income inequality.
Lui Tuck Yu
Washington
The author is Singapore’s ambassador to the United States.
Tragic Death of an Ithaca Man
To the Editor:
“When Tommy Russ Vanished from Ithaca’s Filthy ‘Jungle'” by Dan Barry (May 19, front page) paints a vivid picture of the tragic final years and death of Ithaca resident Thomas Russ. Our hearts go out to Mr. Russ’ family and the children he leaves behind.
However, I disagree with Barry’s assessment of my administration’s efforts to address the intertwined problems of homelessness and crime when I was mayor of Ithaca.
“Under my Administration, we worked tirelessly to build housing for Ithaca’s vulnerable residents, resulting in an overall decrease in crime in the City. More affordable housing units have been built under our Administration than in the previous 40 years of our City’s history combined, as well as temporary housing for residents of the Jungle homeless camp.”
Far from preventing police from patrolling the jungle, we ordered them to do so, and when officers refused to get out of their patrol cars in the area, we built new roads to make access easier.
Unfortunately, this article reinforces the false and simplistic assertion that progressive administrations cannot reduce homelessness or crime, when in fact our administration has accomplished both of these goals.
Unfortunately, pursuing such claims could lead to inhumane “solutions” that cause greater harm to both vulnerable and unhoused people and the communities they live in. We cannot allow this tragic case to become such a legacy.
Svante Myrick
Washington
The author is president of People for the American Way.
MSNBC’s Role in Democracy
To the Editor:
Regarding the article “Battle at NBC over MSNBC’s leftward shift” (May 16, front page):
The problem is news organizations that normalize American politics, not MSNBC.
The Republican Party has become a rogue party that supports insurrection and refuses to accept the results of a legitimate election. They refuse to accept the basic principles that determine a fair election. Therefore, there is no longer parity between the Democrats and Republicans.
As a nation, we need to re-establish a healthy two-party system that follows the rules of democracy. We can only do that if we overcome current threats to our constitutional system of government.
MSNBC is more interested in protecting our democracy than it is in promoting a political ideology. Keep rocking.
Chase Webb
Portland, Oregon
