Of course, a great deal depends on how you define "reneging on the promise". A promise made without the means to fulfill it is a fraud. Having said that, "Socialist Insecurity" can be kept solvent if we simply limit the increase to that of the actual cost of living in stead of wages. Socialist Insecurity has been going up and up and up for decades, to buy votes. Just keeping it level would keep it solvent. Worst case, we would cut it by a small percentage. Cut it only 10% and our problem is solved for decades, long enough to put a solid individual investment system in place, instead of the government Ponzi scheme that we now have.
I am very close to retiring. I would much rather have a solid 90% of what I was "promised" instead of nothing, which is what we will get if we crash the system.
Thanks again to all who commented. I am jealous of the guy with the million dollar 401k! But the average 401k of baby boomers is only $80k, so I’m doing well above average. Also - I agree that SS should never be a sole retirement or comfortable retirement program; I think it serves well as a minimal thing for the poor and a supplement for the rest of us.
One factual detail - the 15% overhead for 401k management comes from various sources: http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/myth.htm says “Administrative costs for Social Security are about 1 percent of benefits, compared with average administrative costs of 12 to 14 percent for private insurers.” I guess that they are specifically talking annuities. But I also watched an interview with Fred Schwed (”Where are the Customers Yachts?”) in which he made a strong case that those who handle our investment money make more than those who invest.
But again - I am a strong proponent of putting the maximum into 401ks! I advise it to everyone. I just think that whatever the salesman says that you will end up with, be cautious and assume you’ll only get half that much.