I guess that I’ll go out on a limb and state that, regardless of the advertising, Social Security has ALWAYS (or just about always) been a transfer program, as the future recipients decided to spend the withheld money (collectively, of course) on higher priority items - such as the Great Society, public housing, and, of course, ‘education’, rather than saving it.
Given that, the first ‘reform’ that I would make is simply change Social Security into what it really is now, which is a WELFARE PROGRAM. Since the old people are no longer spending their own savings (if they ever were), then the government has a right, a responsibility, to make sure that the money it demands from younger people is spent wisely - after all, we expect it (maybe not get it, but expect it) in traditional welfare programs.
Bottom line - if you drive a Winnebago, I do not want MY KIDS to have to pay for YOUR INDULGENCE.
p.s., I sure as hell never defend Graham (look up my posting history), but in this ONE case, he is right - even if he has no clue as to why.
So, if someone works their tail off at a well-paying job all their life, they're not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor? After all, they've paid the most into the system. Let me give you the flip side. My MIL never worked a day in her life. My FIL never made over $14K a year. After he passed in 1994, his SS benefits went to her. She got $1550 a month for the rest of her life. She lived another 15 years. Are you OK with your kids paying for that? According to you, I guess that's ok, just as long as somebody doesn't have a Winnebago. You're just another class warfare socialist.
[regardless of the advertising, Social Security has ALWAYS (or just about always) been a transfer program, as the future recipients decided to spend the withheld money ]
Wrong. The politicians stole the money and used it, not the people. Most do not even know the DC politicians stole the working peoples money long ago, with the help of the central bank of couse.
Easy solution, just eliminate COLA to all recipients with household income above the poverty line. Reduce starting benefits 10% for (2011) age 65, 11% age 64, etc. Raise retirement age to actuarial life expectancy plus one year or legitimate disability.
Over time, all recipients will be limited to payments providing only enough to live at just above the poverty line.
This should result in enough savings that FICA can be lowered until Social Security becomes what it should have been all along - Old Age Insurance. That should cost about 2% from each the employer and the employee on the first 100K of income.
Privatize everything else using Chile as a model. Social Security payouts should not be a source of retirement income for anybody, it should only be enough to keep you from starving. Anything above that level should be based on your personal initiative and the family and community you cultivate during your life.