Monday's State Journal Opinion page featured two dueling opinions on fixing funding for Social Security.
One wanted to increase the upper income limit for payments into Social Security. The opposing opinion said other ways can address the issue but didn't really provide any, while listing problems with raising the income upper limit.
What is Social Security? Is it an entitlement for everyone to receive, regardless of income, or is it an insurance policy to payout as needed? It would be better for it to be like an insurance policy that everyone pays into, but does not receive benefits unless qualified by income.
This was proposed as "means testing" years back in Congress. People with higher "means" (income) would not qualify for benefits. They would still have the insurance policy they paid into if their income fell, but most benefits would go to people of less "means." This makes sense and needs to be brought up again.
People are also reading…
Social Security should have had more emphasis in the recent campaign for U.S. Senate. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Oshkosh, is a critic of Social Security. Mandela Barnes didn't bring up this issue nearly enough. When a major block of high turnout voters is older, why was it ignored?
Bob Hunt, Lodi