Letters to the editor: Correcting an injustice in social security – but for how long?

To the editor: If the US Senate Votes to pass the Social Security Fairness Actit will right a monstrous injustice inflicted on millions of hard-working people for far too long. The Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset have prevented them from receiving their rightful benefits for decades.

People who have worked in public-sector jobs that do not pay into Social Security have, in most cases, also worked for several years in private-sector jobs that did pay into Social Security. Since they receive a state pension, they receive next to nothing for social security contributions. In many cases, this split in career choice means their state pensions are low and without social security they are forced to live in poverty.

In addition to this injustice, state pension equalization significantly reduces or eliminates spousal and survivor benefits. A spouse with no employment history can receive benefits, but because someone has chosen to work for the common good, they are denied this basic lifeline.

As this travesty festered, many of its victims died waiting for relief. We all know that the social security system needs to be reformed within the next decade, but squeezing every last ill-gotten penny from these suffering workers is not only wrong, it is also cruel!

Mark McCloud, Newhall

..

To the editor: The changes Biden and Trump want to make to Social Security will affect women more than men. For years I worked with men who did the same job but earned significantly less pay. Of course, that meant I paid less into Social Security, so now I get a lot less.

If the Senate passes the Social Security Fairness Act and Biden signs it, increasing benefits will leave less money in the fund. If Trump doesn’t allow tips to be taxed and more people work as subcontractors instead of employees, less money will flow into the fund. It seems to me that the only reason Republicans are against increasing the maximum wage subject to Social Security taxes is because it would also increase the amount that companies have to pay.

What politicians do with these so-called bipartisan actions is no different than what insurance companies do after you pay for coverage: they reduce it or withdraw it.

Shirley Conley, Gardena