Editor’s note: This is the second of two parts. The first was published March 1.

Star Parker in her Jan. 23 commentary stated “Social Security is broke.” Froma Harrop stated “it’s true that the accounting for Social Security has been a bit scuzzy. That has given some conservatives an opening to argue that they don’t have to pay these benefits because, oops, the money is gone.” And Jonah Goldberg states in his Feb. 17 commentary that workers have paid into Social Security all their lives is “popular nonsense” because they get more out of the programs than they pay in.

Well, the idea behind the program was to get funds, invest and grow the funds, and make the required payments to the vested workers. Would you invest in a 401(k) retirement program or any business/investment for that matter if all you would receive in return is youroriginal investment? I think not. So what is the difference?

As Ms. Harrop states, “the investments held by the trust funds are, like other Treasury securities, basically loans made to the government. Had the Treasury not been able to get this money from Social Security, it would have had to borrow more from the public by issuing additional debt.”

Finally, Ms. Parker accurately states “there are two ways that federal spending can be financed. Taxes or debt. Politicians don’t like taxation because they have to be honest with citizens that they are taking their money. Borrowing achieves the same end without asking.” But in this instance, it was the citizens (workers) money in the first place!

So what do we do to place Social Security on sound footing again?

Area columnist Thomas Kirkpatrick offers the following suggestions:

¯ Raise the 6.2% payroll tax, even by 1%. I would not suggest this as it negatively affects the workers trying to make ends meet every day the most.

¯ Increase the retirement age, which was done in 1983. This suggestion is not going over well in France where they are grappling with the same problem and facing protests and riots over the issue. With Americans living longer lives, this could be a last resort solution.

¯ Reduce the cost of living adjustment, although Mr. Kirkpatrick states it could be very controversial. I believe that something that is properly indexed to everyday needs of recipients is required to keep the program realistic and something that should be continued.

¯ The equally controversial “means test” alternative which eliminates or limits Social Security payments to high income retirees. If a worker has contributed to a program they should not be eliminated from it because of their high income. With that said, whatever the maximum yearly benefit is right now is the limit a high income retiree can receive.

¯ Raise or eliminate the tax cap, which is currently capped at a maximum for 2022 of $147,000 of income. I strongly recommend this alternative for a number of reasons. It is a regressive or flat tax that unfairly falls on the middle and lower classes. The rate is 6.2% on all workers but once you go above the $147,000 figure the tax rate effectively goes down.

For example, on someone earning $300,000 the effective rate is 3.03%. That in my view is unfair. In addition when Social Security first began, only 3% exceeded the tax cap whereas 6% now exceed the tax cap.

Also, 92% of the earnings in 1937 were taxed whereas in 2019 only 83% were taxed. This simple step, in my view, will go a long way in solving the funding problem without incurring additional hardship or implementation costs on businesses as it is most likely the simple deletion of one line of computer code (the tax cap) in most payroll systems.

It also accomplishes one the most desired objectives of a lot of people as stated by Mr. Goldberg, “finally making the wealthiest and biggest corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes.” And to tell you the truth, I do not believe corporations that have to match the 6.2% of the high earners and the high earners themselves will even notice the additional tax money deducted as in the long run it benefits them, for example, by providing income to those that buy tickets to their major league sporting events or the products and/services that they provide.

Finally, I just like to make mention of a term used by all of the columnists that I have listed and the elected representatives of our government and it rubs me the wrong way.

The term is “entitlement.” Ms. Parker states it “is a government label for payments that are mandatory for the government to make, as opposed to discretionary spending, like for instance, defense spending.” The dictionary defines “entitlement” is “the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.”

Just like a 401(k) or any other investment opportunity, Social Security is a contract between two parties, in this case, the worker and the government. I worked for and contributed to – whether voluntary or not – the program and I do not expect special privileges or treatment, just the return on my investment as set forth at the beginning of the relationship. And please, do not make Social Security a political football in any proposal to “sunset” entitlement programs every five years. The program has worked reasonably well for 88 years and we do not need whatever political party that is in control to be able to make changes that could be reversed every five years.

Robert Scott is a Fredonia resident.