Democrats have a plan to enhance the program for all, with no cut in benefits
The Jan. 14 editorial, “Mitt Romney puts a spotlight on Social Security’s looming shortfall,” highlights the importance of both protecting Social Security from cuts and enhancing the nation’s number one anti-poverty program for the elderly and children.
The Trump administration is focused on dismantling it from within, cutting around 7,000 members of the agency’s staff, eliminating regional offices, and slashing phone service. Democrats continue to push back against these attacks on the people’s benefits, but it is time to act.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries; Richard Neal, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee; and I are introducing comprehensive legislation this year that would expand benefits and ensure that Social Security will continue to provide millions of Americans with their hard-earned benefits. I commend Mitt Romney for joining our continued call to lift the cap on Social Security. Having the wealthy pay their fair share allows us to secure Social Security’s future and expand benefits for the first time in more than 50 years.
Social Security is the safety net that keeps capitalism, entrepreneurialism, and free markets intact. We need action, not more dialogue. We have a plan, and it’s time to vote. Thank you to the former Republican senator from Utah for recognizing Social Security’s value to free markets and capitalism and to the Globe for highlighting the issue.
Representative John B. Larson
East Hartford, Conn.
The writer, a Democrat, is the ranking member of the House Social Security Subcommittee and represents Connecticut’s First Congressional District.
There are better options than removing the cap on income
Your Jan. 14 editorial discusses Mitt Romney’s call to increase the cap on taxable income for Social Security, but you take the idea even further by envisioning removing the cap altogether. That is an interesting concept, but there are more effective options for addressing the long-term health of the program.
Social Security is already the most progressive benefit program in the country. The benefit formula replaces 90 percent of average monthly pay up to roughly $1,250, then scales down to 32 percent and finally 15 percent on earnings above about $7,500. The payroll tax cap — $184,500 in 2026 — also limits the amount of income used when calculating a person’s Primary Insurance Amount, the core monthly benefit a person receives at their full retirement age.
So, if the cap is removed, would all earnings above the cap also count toward the PIA? If so, the result, as the editorial rightly notes, would be extremely large benefits for high earners who don’t need them. If not, the program would become even more progressive, and employers with many high-income employees would face a significant new burden.
Some argue that we should simply raise marginal income tax rates by a percentage point or two. But replacing payroll-tax revenue with income-tax revenue would undermine the “earned benefit” structure of Social Security. Social Security was designed as a contributory insurance program, not a welfare program, and weakening that principle could make future benefit cuts more politically feasible.
A better option, in my view, would be a high-income surtax borne only by the employee — for example, a 2 percent to 3 percent surtax on earnings above $500,000. The revenue could be dedicated exclusively to Social Security’s trust fund, similar to how Massachusetts’ “millionaires tax” is restricted to specific uses by statute. This approach would preserve the contributory nature of the program, avoid adding costs for employers, and meaningfully strengthen long-term solvency.
Bottom line: Social Security requires either increased funding or reduced benefits. A balanced solution makes the most sense to me, and a targeted high-earner surtax could be a key part of that strategy.
David Kornwitz
Wellesley Hills
The writer is the chair of the Wellesley Retirement Board.