Cuts to Social Security benefits no answer

To the editor:

I have a few comments regarding Tom Cameron's Monday letter to the editor on Social Security:

Sen. Harry Reid has very little to do with the problems Social Security is facing. The under-funding problem with Social Security has to do with demographics: 90 million aging people who will be collecting benefits and a smaller percentage of people paying in.

Regarding reducing Social Security benefits, Mr. Cameron is obviously not a senior. The average woman on Social Security gets a $900 monthly check, the average man $1,100 a month. Some households headed by elderly people are among the poorest households in the country. No wonder these folks are "easily frightened."

I wonder how much dog and cat food is consumed by the elderly in this country.

The thought of taking money away from the elderly who built this country and have so little is nothing short of outrageous. They could pass a national sales tax tomorrow that would cover the Social Security and Medicare liabilities going into the future. Then, when the vast majority of baby boomers have died over the next 40 years, restructure the current system or come up with something brand new.

Taking money away from an elderly woman who's trying to live on $900 a month doesn't cut it.

Gerry Hageman

Las Vegas

Hard choices

To the editor:

The firefighters just don't get it, and neither do the other union groups. The financial problems being experienced by virtually every municipality in America are not going to be solved by the Band-Aid approach of giving up one fiscal year's pay raise and/or benefits. What about next year? With the reduced revenue and continued unemployment, there are very few options available that will solve the problem on a permanent basis.

There needs to be, and will be, a major course correction in the structure of employment, salary and benefits of municipal employees. It's coming, so get ready for it.

The private sector has and is still going through it. Las Vegas is the poster child for a shattered economy. It has had to deal with extremes in almost every sector of its economy. It will survive only when it makes the hard choices. The easy ones have already been made.

Barry C. Bender Sr.

North Las Vegas

Get the rich

To the editor:

I have a theory that the conservative-right leadership is really a fifth column for the Democrats.

I can see no other reason for such statements as silly as this one made by Review-Journal columnist Glenn Cook on Sunday: "Worst of all, he (Harry Reid) is making no secret of his desire to significantly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, who already pay a disproportionate share of our taxes."

Such a statement assumes that we are all idiots who cannot verify such information on the Internet.

According to Tax Foundation data from 1991 to 2004:

The top 20 percent, who make 41.5 percent of all income (including government transfers -- you know, like farm subsidies to agribusiness, bailouts, etc.) pay a whopping 34.5 percent of all taxes. Members of the middle fifth pay only 28.2 percent. The income for the top fifth starts at about $90,000, while the middle fifth starts at $35,000.

These numbers ignore the fact that half of the payroll tax is "paid by the employer," which is not really the case since, according to most economic theoreticians, that is simply wages not paid to the employee, i.e., the tax rate for the middle fifth is closer to 30 percent.

So what Mr. Cook calls a disproportionate share of taxes between the middle and the top fifth is all of a 5 percent tax rate.

What is of more interest is that when you get to the very top, because of good lawyers and accountants, you see a drop in actual tax rates. According to the IRS, the top 400 pay only about 15 percent of their gross adjusted taxable income in federal taxes. Note the phrase "taxable income." No taxes are paid on fax-free income.

Here is another sample of "unfairness."

The top 20 percent get about 42 percent of all income, and pay a whopping 49 percent of all taxes. Imagine that. They are paying 7 percent more of the burden, as compared to the middle fifth, who only pay 1 percent. I bet that makes you feel really sad for that poor, tax-burdened fire captain making $200,000 a year. Or maybe for the Wall Street CEO making a few hundred million a year and having to pay an extra 7 percent into the Treasury. Or how about all those retired civil "servants" drawing down six-figure retirement payments? You have to feel bad about their tax burden.

So, Mr. Cook, please stop treating us like morons, telling us about the horrid burden that the very rich must bear and how the tax burden limits them to only five homes instead of seven, while millions are having trouble putting food on the table.

And stop implying that, perhaps if they paid zero taxes, all those jobs that they sent overseas to children in India and convicts in China would miraculously come back to this country.

Doug Nusbaum

Las Vegas