Saving Social Security System

In “As Social Security Turns 60: Do We Have the Will to Save It?” (editorial, July 30) you contend that “the root of the problem is demographic and political.” Wrong! The root of the problem is that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a contract with me and my cohorts that subsequent administrations dishonored. Roosevelt announced to America that, as many workers did not save money to provide for their old age, our government would impose forced savings by taking a percentage of our paychecks and levying a similar tax upon our employers. The moneys were to be invested in government securities and, when the worker reached 65, his/her money would be returned in the form of an old-age pension.

What happened? Political charlatans couldn’t stand to see my money just sitting there and accruing interest. They embezzled my (and that of millions of my fellow American workers) pension moneys and spent it directly on foolishness like the Vietnam War, and indirectly by hoodwinking us into believing that diverting my pension funds in the U.S. treasury reduced their astronomical spending deficit.

What we must do is restore the billions stolen from my cohorts’ trust fund, keep the thieves from pilfering my grandkids’ contributions, and restore their confidence that they will get their money, plus interest, back when they turn 65.

MAX FREEDLAND

Long Beach

*

* As a 66-year-old collecting Social Security, I have a personal interest in seeing the system remain solvent, and would like to make two suggestion to help attain that goal.

First, increase the amount which may be earned on a paycheck without triggering a reduction in the Social Security monthly payment. The current amount--$11,280--comes to about $5.50 an hour at full employment for a year, and is not much above minimum wage. Raising this ceiling to about $25,000 would encourage many to continue working after becoming Social Security eligible, and these people would pay Social Security taxes on their wages.

And second, eliminate the distinction between types of income based on sources. Under the present system, Joe Workingstiff, who works for wages, sees his Social Security monthly benefit reduced by $1 for every $3 he makes in wages. On the other hand, Reggie von Gotrocks, who receives hundreds of thousands in dividend and interest income, can continue collecting his full Social Security benefit without reduction! If we are going to penalize Social Security recipients for outside income, it should be all income.

Implementation of these two suggestions would not solve all of the Social Security Administration’s problems, but they would bring in at least some additional revenue, and go a long way toward increasing the average retiree’s perception of fairness.

IRVING B. KASOW

Desert Hot Springs