Nikki Haley’s flawed views about Social Security put at risk America's most successful income safety net

Echo opinion letter to the Editor of The New York Times:

Re “(Nikki) Haley Is Coming for Your Retirement,” by Paul Krugman (column, Nov. 28):

Mr. Krugman is right in pointing out the inequality connected to proposals to raise the age at which one becomes eligible for Social Security. As he points out, the proposals are, “in effect, saying that the aging janitors must keep working (or be cast into extreme poverty) because rich bankers are living longer.”

But it’s even worse than that. The problem of an impending shortfall of the Social Security Trust Fund (because George 43 took the money but the Republicans did not pay it back❗) is in significant part a consequence of our rising economic inequality. High-income people pay a smaller share of their income into Social Security because salary over $160,200 — the so-called “tax max” — is not subject to the Social Security tax.

Also, there is no Social Security tax on income from capital (including dividends, interest, capital gains and rents), which tends to go to wealthy people. 

Save Social Security- raising the age for beneficiaries is not the right answer!  In other words, so, janitors will work longer so the rich do not have to pay their fare share?

Consequently, as a larger and larger part of our national income goes to the rich, the share collected by the Social Security tax declines.

The solution is not hard to envision: Raise the “tax max” and tax income from capital. Better yet, adopt a set of policies that would move us toward a more equal distribution of income.

From Arthur MacEwan in Cambridge, Mass., professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Boston.