Let the rich cover Social Security gap

To the editor:

Social Security has been a hot topic in the letters to the editor lately. While some have called it a pyramid scheme, I think it's useful to better understand what it really is. It was created as a social insurance program, to protect the elderly and needy in times when they may not be able to earn a living.

Every developed country has some form of Social Security, and most countries consider it important and vital, as do the majority of U.S. citizens.

Social Security should never go broke or run out of money. Premiums must be raised to cover the cost of coverage. Therein lies the rub; the ultra-right perceives Social Security withholding as a tax, not for what it is, an insurance premium. With their empty-headed, no-taxes mantra, they are therefore trying to defund and kill a valuable insurance program that has been in existence for more than 70 years.

There is a very simple solution to solving this Social Security problem. Many people don't realize that there is now and always has been an artificial "cap" on income subject to Social Security withholding. If you are a middle-class American earning $80,000 per year, you are expected to pay Social Security premiums on every dollar of your income. If you are an executive at a major company making $10 million, however, your liability for paying into Social Security stops at a little over your first $100,000 of income. This is not only unfair but in many ways anti-American. You make you $10 million on the backs of the middle class, but you are too "special" to contribute to the possible future needs of this country? This not income redistribution; this is creating a privileged rich class.

If the cap were removed, many great things would result.

First, Social Security and its ancillary programs would be solvent for the next 100 years, assuring future generations and your children and grandchildren that they would never be subjected to abject poverty as they age.

Second, the actual withholding rate for Social Security could be dramatically reduced for both individuals and businesses. This is especially useful now as it will put more discretionary income in the hands of consumers, allowing us to prop up the current economy and begin a new era of economic resurgence.

Third, small business withholding rates could be dramatically reduced, stimulating again a new wave of American entrepreneurship and economic growth.

Finally, with a booming economy, we can bring our national debt under control.

Raising the cap would affect fewer than 5 percent of the population, the richest Americans. Yet it would benefit not just the other 95 percent, but also the rich, who would benefit from the resulting economic boom.

Stop the brain-dead pledge of no tax increases and do the right thing for America.

Paul Carman

Henderson

Safe money

To the editor:

Gerald Kelly (Thursday letter) says he doesn't want direct deposit of his Social Security check, because once it hits the bank the funds are exposed to creditors, the IRS and collection agencies.

That is false.

Social Security income, VA disability and state/government retirement income are 100 percent exempt assets under NRS 21.090(1)(y).

Even if the funds are in a bank account, if the account holder can prove that the only source of funds is protected income, then creditors can't take the funds. Open a separate account you use solely to receive these funds, then spend directly from that account and don't ever deposit anything else into that account yourself. Your bank will put a notation on your account that it is protected. If you have creditors who are pursuing you, tell them it is a protected account.

Lastly, if you owe the IRS, it can garnish funds at their source. It doesn't have to wait until they are in an account.

Get more information, at no charge, by contacting the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada at (702) 386-1070.

William Devine

Henderson

The writer is a local attorney.