Friday, March 1, 2013 | 2:02 a.m.
Gary Musser’s letter to the editor Wednesday (“Eliminate the cap on Social Security”) suggests we eliminate the cap on Social Security. Think for a moment, is this really the solution?
If wages above the cap were taxed, wouldn’t those people be eligible for increased Social Security payments? And if they were, would the new revenue really be enough to fund Social Security significantly longer than current projections? Or do the proponents of this solution wish to keep benefits capped at certain income levels?
Revenue and spending form the basis for the overall debt of the country and the status of the government’s annual budget (or ongoing funding resolutions). Revenue was raised in several forms over the past few years, including Obamacare taxes and the 2012 tax changes. Spending reductions were agreed to in 2011 in what is being called the sequester.
For Social Security, the use of the increased revenue in relation to those who pay it needs to be clarified. These details are needed to determine the true impact of this change on Social Security funding. For the debt issue, both revenue and spending should be addressed at the same time by our elected officials so there is a greater hope the agreement will provide the path to a balanced budget and economic stability.