To the editor: Contributing author Veronique de Rugy just isn’t being clear when she talks of Social Safety (“The Senate’s 2026 class may be the most consequential,” Nov. 6).
The majority of Social Safety is funded by payroll taxes; it’s not a charity or an “entitlement.” There may be certainly a niche stuffed by the belief fund, which is equal to about 5% of our deficit. This hole could possibly be closed if there was no payroll cap for increased incomes. The Social Safety payroll tax is a flat fee on all wages, however just for the primary $184,500 of a person’s earnings.
To place issues in perspective, the Iran warfare prices us an estimated $2 billion-$3 billion monthly. A lot of this cash is borrowed, including to the deficit.
De Rugy’s primary preoccupation appears to be defending the rich from paying their fair proportion for the privilege of dwelling within the richest nation on this planet. This may be acceptable if the wealthy did make America extra affluent, because it has been touted and tried many instances since President Reagan, however this strategy by no means produced the outcomes anticipated.
Isn’t it time to reevaluate our assumptions and to current details actually so we will discover actual options to actual issues? Condemning working individuals who performed by the principles their complete lives to poverty (possibly homelessness) in outdated age is disgusting. Truthful taxation just isn’t.
Marie Matthews, San Pedro
..
To the editor: De Rugy generally appears like a damaged file. Sure, the funds is sophisticated and sure, spending does exceed revenue. However her subtext is that elevating taxes received’t resolve the issue. Actually? Why is chopping advantages all the time the implied reply?
And he or she focuses on taxes paid by the rich with the same old implication that they’re paying their fair proportion or extra. Once more, actually? How about oligarchs equivalent to Elon Musk or Peter Thiel, who take a minuscule wage to keep away from paying taxes? And why are company taxes so low? This example advantages solely the executives and shareholders of these firms, not society at massive.
I’m nonetheless ready for De Rugy to deal with the wealth imbalance between the 1% and the 99%. However in fact, that’s verboten amongst die-hard conservatives.
Martin Parker, Thousand Oaks
