To the editor: Contributing writer Veronique de Rugy is not being transparent when she talks of Social Security (“The Senate’s 2026 class may be the most consequential,” Nov. 6).
The bulk of Social Security is funded by payroll taxes; it is not a charity or an “entitlement.” There is indeed a gap filled by the trust fund, which is equal to about 5% of our deficit. This gap could be closed if there was no payroll cap for higher incomes. The Social Security payroll tax is a flat rate on all wages, but only for the first $184,500 of an individual’s earnings.
To put things in perspective, the Iran war costs us an estimated $2 billion-$3 billion per month. Much of this money is borrowed, adding to the deficit.
De Rugy’s main preoccupation seems to be protecting the wealthy from paying their fair share for the privilege of living in the richest country in the world. This would be acceptable if the rich did make America more prosperous, as it has been touted and tried many times since President Reagan, but this approach never produced the results expected.
Isn’t it time to reevaluate our assumptions and to present facts honestly so we can find real solutions to real problems? Condemning working people who played by the rules their whole lives to poverty (maybe homelessness) in old age is disgusting. Fair taxation is not.
Marie Matthews, San Pedro
..
To the editor: De Rugy sometimes sounds like a broken record. Yes, the budget is complicated and yes, spending does exceed income. But her subtext is that raising taxes won’t solve the problem. Really? Why is cutting benefits always the implied answer?
And she focuses on taxes paid by the wealthy with the usual implication that they are paying their fair share or more. Again, really? How about oligarchs such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel, who take a minuscule salary to avoid paying taxes? And why are corporate taxes so low? This situation benefits only the executives and shareholders of those corporations, not society at large.
I’m still waiting for De Rugy to address the wealth imbalance between the 1% and the 99%. But of course, that’s verboten among die-hard conservatives.
Martin Parker, Thousand Oaks
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
