To the editor: There is already a cap on Social Security benefits, something columnist Michael Hiltzik doesn’t bother to explain (“A proposed new ‘fix’ for Social Security that harms workers and protects the rich,” April 2). The current cap on benefits for a worker who retires at age 70 is $5,181 per month, or $62,172 per year. That’s $124,344 for a couple. What the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is proposing would be a 20% cut for retirees receiving the maximum. After that cut, what other cuts would CRFB start promoting?
Many people don’t have significant retirement resources other than Social Security. You can say they should have saved other money for retirement, but there are all kinds of reasons it doesn’t always happen. If the idea is that people should save more, how about raising the caps on contributions to IRAs and 401(k)s? Of course, that would mean less tax money going into federal coffers.
The CRFB seems to think that $30,000 or $40,000 is enough to keep people “out of poverty.” Where in the U.S. is that true today? Certainly not California.
I worked through several increases in the amount of income payroll taxes were applied to. I’m no billionaire, but I wanted Social Security to be financially viable — not just for me, but for others as well. None of us benefit by reducing our neighbors to poverty.
I did not work my tail off for 46 years to live my final years just “out of poverty.” Retirement needs to be more than eat, sleep and go to the doctor.
June Ailin Sewell, Marina del Rey
..
To the editor: Hiltzik nails it again. His column reflects clearly what many of us have been asking for years: “Why is there a cap on contributing to Social Security?”
Occam’s razor applies here: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Eliminate or at least raise the cap on contributions to mirror inflation and the benefit most of us paid into for almost 50 years to continue to keep food on the table for us seniors.
John Winkelman, Rancho Mission Viejo