To the editor:

Veronique De Rugy has an insightful column on Social Security options in Sunday’s Journal-World, certainly an urgent topic for public and congressional debate. One paragraph seems enigmatic or downright problematic: “Democrats would like to keep all the benefits and raise taxes on higher-income people quite dramatically. This is a ridiculous idea. The damage caused by jacking up the payroll tax to the level required to restore solvency isn’t worth the benefit.” Exactly what is that “damage”? Is requiring people who make more than $176,100 (2025) to pay Social Security tax on their entire income, as those making minimum wage ($7.25/hour since 2009) must do, damaging? Maybe net worth and unrealized capital gains should enter the equation, too. The “benefit” would include a significant step to keep Social Security solvent past 2033. That seems like a good bargain.

Paul Enos,

Lawrence