SEND US YOUR OPINION: Letters to the editor should be no more than 300 words. The Post-Tribune reserves the right to edit
or reject any letter. All letters must be signed and include your name, address and telephone number for verification. To send us
your letter to the editor, mail to: 1433 E. 83rd Ave., Merrillville, IN 46410; fax to: (219) 648-3249; or e-mail to email@example.com . If you have questions, call Diane Aden Hayes, managing editor, at (219) 648-3241.
Updated: January 17, 2013 6:05AM
It’s Congress that’s getting undeserved entitlements
My hat’s off to Greg Susoreny and his comments on entitlements.
The real entitlements lie in the U.S. Congress; they vote themselves raises, have free health care, and full retirement after one term. Such a deal for them, and what a burden for taxpayers who are stuck with a bunch of pious, do-nothing elected bureaucrats who, until recently, could trade stocks on insider information.
Wake up, voters, and fight for the investments for which you have worked a lifetime.
There’s an easy fix for the way we fund Social Security
I need someone to set me straight. What am I missing? Neither political party, nor the mainstream media, has revealed a plan for fixing the funding of Social Security by raising the maximum amount of individual taxable earnings.
Currently, and since 2009, taxpayers — wealthy or not — pay on the first $106,800 of income. Individual taxpayers whose income exceeds the $106,800 stop paying more tax above that amount.
When the Social Security program began in 1937, the maximum individual Social Security tax level started at $3,000. Since then, the maximum income figure was increased more than 40 times by automatic adjustment provisions in the law, to the current amount of $106,800.
Over the last decade or so, most everyone knows we have experienced a huge shift of income toward the very wealthy, and a huge reduction of income to the rest of the workers. As long as this relatively new income disparity continues, the Social Security program will not be able to fund itself in a few decades.
Therefore, our distinguished politicians need to amend the law to keep the $106,800 maximum intact, but make individual incomes exceeding that amount to be taxed on a steep progressive rate.
This is not some radical idea; our regular income taxes are structured similarly.
By changing the law in this manner, there would be no need to raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67 years, which is a bad idea because the United States, believe it or not, has a shorter life span than most of the other industrialized nations.
What do you think?
Strongbow Inn shows some still care about customers
How wonderful to see a business really care about its customers.
Upon our return to Lowell from the Strongbow Inn in Valparaiso, my mother realized she had left her hat in the restaurant. She called them and, lo and behold, they had found her hat and mailed it back.
It was heartwarming to see their care and concern. My mom is kind of old, and it confirmed for her that there still are good people.