A regressive tax could cover the deficit in Social Security reserves


to the editor: For employees, the Social Security tax is currently 6.2% for both the employee and the employer for the first $184,500 of annual salary, falling to zero for all subsequent salaries (self-employed individuals pay 12.4% of the first $184,500 of net earnings).

A commonly suggested remedy for projected reserve fund depletion is to simply extend or eliminate the taxable salary cap, which is currently adjusted annually upward for inflation (“The Social Security crisis should dominate the Senate campaign,” June 12). What never seems to be considered is adjusting the tax rate. I would think that moving from a fixed rate to a regressive one would generate more revenue and could actually reduce the tax for most wage earners (important for political acceptance).

It might look like this: 6% employer and employee tax on the first $200,000 earned; 5% on the next $100,000; followed by 4% to 3% to 2% in increments of $100,000 up to eventually 1% for earnings over $600,000 a year. While this would not generate the same revenue as simply eliminating the salary cap, it would be much more politically acceptable.

Bob Fey, Orange

scroll to top