How wealthy could save Social Security

Steve Rosin, Las Vegas

Saturday, April 19, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.

As a person approaching 62 years of age, I went to the Social Security office to find out what my benefits would be when I became eligible in three months.

Because I am a retired postal worker (civil service) and am receiving a pension, I was told my benefit of $256 per month would be reduced by 50 percent because I was a government employee.

I was also told that if I earned more than $13,800 a year, my benefits may also be reduced further. In addition, any earnings during that time would be subject to my paying into Social Security and Medicare, whether or not I use Medicare. Not only that but because my pension exceeds $25,000, I would have to pay income tax on my Social Security benefits.

I can live with that.

The thing that bugs me is, why is the amount people pay into Social Security and Medicare limited to the first $97,000 in earnings?

Social Security, according to the U.S. government, will be bankrupt by 2039.

A simple way to save Social Security is to flat-tax all earnings regardless of limits.

Why should people making millions of dollars a year be limited to paying 7.45 percent of that money into Social Security and Medicare? That comes out to only $7,178 a year whether you make $97,000 or $97 million.

This would boost Social Security revenues by billions of dollars a year, yet the government chooses to protect the wealthy and place the burden on the ones who get hit the most, the retirees and pensioners.

Like the song “Ain’t We Got Love” says, “The rich get rich and the poor get poorer.”