Readers Write: Taxing Social Security, alleviating student debt, Minneapolis schools, the Austin community

John James' and Joel Michael's March 1 commentary "Please keep taxing our Social Security benefits" overlooked the purpose of Social Security set forth in the preamble to the Social Security Act, which provides: "An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws … ."

There is nothing in that preamble or in the act suggesting that part of the benefits provided should be used to reform a state's tax system. And because the act was intended for the purpose of making a "more adequate provision," it is difficult to see how reduction of those benefits through taxation contributes to those objectives.

It was not until 1983 that Social Security benefits became taxable under a bill signed by President Ronald Reagan for the purpose of cutting benefits and raising revenue, and the taxes collected were dedicated to the Social Security Fund, not to state revenue. Until 1983, Social Security benefits were specifically excluded from income taxation, and the 1983 amendment was intended to help improve the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds. And it should be noted that any trust fund solvency concerns can be solved by simply eliminating the cap on the income amount on which Social Security taxes are paid, which would also eliminate the inequity in favor of the wealthy which that cap enshrines.

As Minnesota baby boomers facing retirement, we are confronting many of the same issues and questions that thousands of our peers are facing, such as: Do we have the resources to retire comfortably? How much will Medicare cost? Where can we cut expenses? And, where is the best place to live? The answers to these questions are sometimes more difficult than we would have predicted 20 years ago. They are difficult because they include considerations like grandchildren, pre-existing health conditions, home maintenance, weather and mobility. For most of us, there isn't likely to be one issue that tips the scale in favor of moving to Florida or remaining here in Minnesota.

A number of our friends have decided to split the difference. For example, one couple sold their home in Chaska. Then, they rented a condo, established a bank account and completed the various tasks to become official residents of Florida. They plan to spend about seven months a year in residence and the remainder in the Gopher State. (Their admitted preference would be to spend only three months in Florida, but 183 days residency is required.) By not paying taxes on Social Security in Minnesota, they estimate a savings equivalent to three months of mortgage payments. Is the tax issue the sole reason for their action? No, but it is an incentive.

What does Minnesota lose by their absence? As far as I can tell, no one in state government has conducted an informed assessment. Before we dismiss the repeal of Social Security taxes, shouldn't we determine if there might be a net gain or not? How many "higher income seniors" are leaving the state? What is lost in retail sales tax, property taxes, vehicle licenses and good old-fashioned diversity when the old folks move away? Would a repeal of Social Security taxes serve as a marketing tool to promote relocation to our Land of 10,000 Lakes?

Legislators and Gov. Tim Walz should not accept anything less than a rigorous survey to determine the net outcome before they dismiss a repeal of the tax out of hand. If a net gain or no loss is determined, then pass a repeal with a 10-year sunset provision.

The rationale for loan interest rates is that unlike mortgages, they are not backed by something tangible like real estate. Let's consider them backed by students' future earnings. Some of my adult children have student loans, even federal loans, in the range of 6% interest. That adds a lot of cost over the life of the loans. If young people defer or reduce their payments based on income, which fortunately our kids have not had to do, they can end up paying little on the principal with no hope of getting ahead. As a nation we provide federal student loans because we all benefit from an educated citizenry. The public has a right to be paid back for money loaned to students, but not to make a big profit.

The views shared in the student-loan commentaries were as much a reflection on the way people think than a contrast in opinions on the topic. We need to understand the root causes before we start throwing money at a problem. To that end:

1) Students, in conjunction with some parents and high school counselors, are making bad decisions. Why? What needs to happen differently for all parties to appreciate the cost vs. benefit of a particular college degree? In particular, do they fully understand that the personal choice to attend an out-of-state or private institution doubles the cost of a degree without any correlation to value?

2) Evaluate K-12 and college curriculums. Students don't have to understand calculus or speak a foreign language to lead a financially successful and emotionally fulfilling life. On the other hand, it helps immensely to be proficient in basic life skills like critical thinking, financial acuity and emotional intelligence. The K-12 years have a direct cost in taxpayer dollars but carry an even greater hidden cost of time spent by students, poorly preparing them for their next stage in life — a cost that dwarfs college debt.

3) For those in true financial need, evaluate alternative forms of public service and with it up to four years of free postsecondary public education.

I was heartened to finally hear voices of parents from the North Side in coverage of Minneapolis Public Schools' Comprehensive District Design plan ("Parents to MPS: We need details," March 1). However, the article continued to leave the impression that south Minneapolis parents overwhelmingly oppose the CDD.

I am a south Minneapolis parent who supports MPS' efforts. As a multiracial family, we are thrilled at the opportunity for our son to attend a true middle school (vs. Hale/Field K-8) and especially one so diverse as Justice Page Middle School. More important, we support MPS' efforts to better serve all kids of color, whom the district is failing currently.

While there are some parents in our Hale/Field community who are speaking loudly against the CDD, they do not represent me or our school community. At our Hale School PTA meeting on Feb. 13 attended by 40 parents, every single parent who spoke up spoke in favor of the CDD changes both for our school pathway and for the larger district and for the vision the district is working to achieve.

I understand that the CDD is a first step toward stabilizing MPS and instituting changes that will set us up for a more equitable system. While there have been missteps along the way for sure and the district has work to do to earn trust, it has my support. Please do not continue to amplify the voices of white, privileged communities fighting against changes that have the potential to significantly benefit the majority of students who are not being well-served.

I agree with a March 1 letter writer that the Feb. 23 Sports article "Austin's true colors" was inspiring. But I question his statement that "if the right wing succeeds, the world will be a very dangerous and sad place filled with hate and violence."