To the Editor:
Re “Want to Fix Social Security? The Well-Off Must Accept Smaller Checks,” by Peter Coy (Opinion, nytimes.com, Could 13):
I discover it maddening that the one resolution to the Social Safety Belief Fund difficulties provided by conservatives is decreasing advantages.
There are a selection of acceptable will increase that would clear up the funding issues of Social Safety and Medicare. By acceptable, I imply will increase within the quantity paid into the funds by rich people with excessive incomes, and no will increase within the quantity paid in by working stiffs.
Let me recommend a couple of: The Social Safety tax stops at a comparatively low revenue degree, $168,600 yearly, this 12 months. Why not do as Medicare already does and tax all of an individual’s earned revenue?
Talking of all of an individual’s revenue, why is it that solely “earned” revenue is taxed for Social Safety? Why not tax all revenue, together with funding revenue? The actually wealthy earn most of their revenue by investments, not salaries. To be honest, that revenue needs to be taxed, too.
One other risk is to make the funds progressive as an alternative of a flat tax. Wealthy folks can and will pay the next S.S.A. tax, as they do on common revenue.
All of these measures would make Social Safety and Medicare self-sufficient, and are further bills solely to the well-off.
Peter Limon
Irasburg, Vt.
To the Editor:
Peter Coy outlines a considerate strategy for fixing Social Safety funds and making this system work higher for American retirees. Whereas the system is advanced, the fundamental system for restoring fiscal stability is straightforward.
Profit funds must fall or program revenues — from payroll taxes or basic appropriations — must rise. The trick is getting Congress to behave when supporting both coverage is taken into account political malpractice.
To interrupt the stalemate and keep away from the extreme penalties of inaction, Congress ought to examine how state governments handled underfunded public worker pensions following the 2008 monetary disaster. Lawmakers throughout the political spectrum responded by rising worker contributions, reducing cost of living adjustments for retirees and allocating additional tax dollars to assist stabilize the programs.
In isolation, any one in every of these insurance policies might be criticized for political achieve, however they had been regularly authorized as a bundle with bipartisan help and in states ruled by Republicans and Democrats alike.
The lesson for Congress is that this strategy — which prioritizes shared sacrifice throughout the inhabitants and shared political danger amongst lawmakers — gives a highway map for lastly fixing Social Safety.
Chris McIsaac
Washington
The author is a fellow with the governance program on the R Road Institute, a suppose tank.
To the Editor:
Peter Coy’s name for “reworking” Social Safety “into a security web for the least advantaged” misunderstands the aim of the system. It’s wage insurance coverage, supposed to permit folks to take care of their requirements of residing by changing earnings which might be misplaced attributable to retirement, incapacity or loss of life of a household breadwinner. Practically all employees pay in, and almost all profit.
The overwhelming majority of Social Safety beneficiaries are not wealthy. To realize vital financial savings by decreasing advantages for greater earners you would wish to outline that as folks with common lifetime earnings of solely $85,000 per 12 months. Congressional Republicans are proposing to do exactly that. In lots of areas of the nation, that’s barely center class.
As an alternative of slashing Social Safety advantages for the center class and turning it right into a poverty degree subsistence program, we should always require the actually rich — these making over $400,000 a 12 months — to contribute their fair proportion.
President Biden and congressional Democrats have plans to do exactly that. Their proposals herald sufficient income to not solely guarantee the advantages might be paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future, but additionally increase advantages.
Nancy Altman
Bethesda, Md.
The author is president of Social Safety Works.
Singapore’s View
To the Editor:
“Singapore’s Riches Grew Under Its Longtime Leader, but So Did Discontent” (information article, Could 16) claims that Singapore is “one of the costly cities on this planet.” However the index you cited (revealed by The Economist) measures the cost of living in Singapore primarily with expatriates and enterprise vacationers in thoughts, not residents.
Like many nations, Singapore has skilled greater inflation lately. However we closely subsidize the fundamentals of housing, well being care and schooling for residents.
Greater than 80 % of Singaporeans stay in public housing, and the overwhelming majority personal their properties. 9 in 10 sufferers pay lower than $370 out of pocket for a sponsored public hospital keep. Ninety % of public schooling prices is sponsored.
The Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, has improved within the final twenty years, and redistributive insurance policies have diminished revenue inequality additional.
Lui Tuck Yew
Washington
The author is Singapore’s ambassador to the USA.
An Ithaca Man’s Tragic Loss of life
To the Editor:
“When Tommy Rath Vanished From Ithaca’s Squalid ‘Jungle’,” by Dan Barry (entrance web page, Could 19), paints a vivid image of the tragic remaining years and loss of life of an Ithaca resident, Thomas Rath. Our hearts ache for Mr. Rath’s household and the kid he leaves behind.
Nevertheless, I object to Mr. Barry’s characterization of my administration’s efforts to resolve the entwined issues of homelessness and crime whereas I used to be mayor of Ithaca.
Crime within the metropolis general fell throughout my administration, as we labored tirelessly to create housing for Ithaca’s susceptible residents. We constructed extra inexpensive housing throughout our administration than in the 40 prior years of city history combined, in addition to transitional shelters for residents of the Jungle homeless encampment.
Removed from discouraging police from patrolling the Jungle, we ordered patrols, and when officers refused to get out of their patrol vehicles within the space, we constructed a brand new highway to facilitate entry.
The article sadly reinforces the false and oversimplified narrative that progressive administrations can’t cut back homelessness or crime, when in truth our administration achieved each these goals.
Sadly, pushing such narratives can result in inhumane “options” that create larger hurt, each for the susceptible and unhoused and for the communities the place they reside. We will’t let that be the legacy of this heartbreaking case.
Svante Myrick
Washington
The author is president of Individuals for the American Method.
MSNBC’s Position in Our Democracy
To the Editor:
Re “Fight at NBC Over Left Tilt From MSNBC” (entrance web page, Could 16):
Information retailers that see U.S. politics as regular are the issue, not MSNBC.
Republicans have turn out to be a rogue political get together, supporting riot and refusing to simply accept authentic election outcomes. They refuse to simply accept the elemental rules that decide honest elections. As such, there is no such thing as a longer any equivalency between Democrats and Republicans.
As a nation, we have to re-establish a wholesome two-party adversarial system that abides by democratic guidelines. That may be executed provided that we survive the current menace to our constitutional system of governance.
MSNBC is extra involved about saving our democracy than selling political ideology. Lengthy might it wave.
Chase Webb
Portland, Ore.
Source link
