Social Security
- Share via
Laurence Kotlikoff and Jeffrey Sachs argue persuasively for their reform of Social Security (Commentary, April 5). They base their argument on the fact that with current trends, the payroll tax will need to be increased drastically. I agree with this, but the assumption is that Social Security must be paid for with a payroll tax. This tax is horribly regressive, and should be abolished, with a corresponding (but smaller, because of the broader base) income tax hike. Eliminating this tax would also remove the assumption that Social Security is somehow a pension system, instead of the pay-as-you-go system it truly is.
They then propose that the money being taken through the payroll tax be privatized and invested in the global capital markets. Have they forgotten that Social Security arose in the ‘30s because the Depression had wiped out most people’s privately invested pensions? The “Security” portion of the program’s name is why the government should stand behind the payments.
LEE AYDELOTTE
Huntington Beach
Inside the business of entertainment
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
