Tax on wealthy could save Social Security

The mandatory 22% cut in Social Security benefits paid to seniors looms in only six years, in 2032, if action is not taken soon to avoid a shortfall in funding for the program.

Right now the cap in wages that are taxable for withholding to fund Social Security is $184,500. Some 10% of American wage earners make over $200,000, and many make more than $1 million annually. In addition, this 10% includes thousands of multimillion-dollar earners and billionaires. These very wealthy individuals are still only taxed for Social Security withholding at the same rate as those making $184,000. Without Social Security benefits, 44% of American seniors would be below the poverty level. As it is, benefits comprise over half the income of the average senior, with median income for those over 65 at just $56,000.

To avoid the 22% cut in benefits in six years, the age to qualify for Social Security may be raised so that elderly people will need to keep working past the current retirement age of 67, potentially squeezing availability for those entering the job market. Another solution that could easily fix the shortage in funding would be to raise the income level that is taxed for Social Security so that the very wealthy will pay slightly more.

Should a teacher really be paying a far greater percentage of their income towards benefits withholding than a millionaire? Our legislators are coddling the very wealthy at the expense of the working class, and it is not equitable.

— Patricia Wilson, Sanford

How will socialist government be funded?

As America becomes infected with the “everything is free” aspects of the socialist rhetoric (“Just what is a socialist?” July 21), how is it that no one asked where the money is coming from? If those expecting the free stuff have no intentions of paying for anything, what happens when other people’s money runs out or disappears? To think that all those with money are simply going to sit back and give up everything they have worked for is unrealistic; lots are going to be very disappointed.

In my view, the next step could be real revolt, as those demanding others’ money enter into conflict with the wealthy.

— Bob Kring, DeBary

A living wage is better than a strike

Throughout history, the relationship between employers and workers has often been marked by tension. Labor unions emerged because many workers found themselves with little bargaining power against large corporations. Long hours, unsafe working conditions, and wages that could not support a family gave rise to collective action. While strikes and labor disputes can disrupt businesses and communities, they are often symptoms of a deeper problem rather than the problem itself.

At the heart of many labor disputes lies a simple question, can an honest day’s work provide a dignified life? Most people do not wish to walk picket lines or lose income during a strike. They simply want to earn enough to care for their families while being treated with dignity.

Islam established principles of fairness in employment more than 14 centuries ago. The Holy Prophet Muhammad taught that a worker should be paid promptly and treated with kindness and respect. At the same time, Islam also teaches workers to fulfill their responsibilities honestly and faithfully.

The ideal workplace is one where open communication, fair compensation and mutual trust make strikes unnecessary. When both sides recognize each other’s rights and responsibilities, disputes can often be resolved through dialogue rather than confrontation.

— Farooq Ahmad, Hallandale Beach

You can submit a letter to the editor by sending it by email to insight@orlandosentinel.com or by filling out the form below. Letters are limited to less than 250 words and must be signed (no pseudonyms nor initials).You must include your email address, address with city and daytime phone number for verification. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and length.