Hey, I'm just the messenger here, just as Christie is. I don't think the money is ear-marked like you think it is. I agree that the SSDI is corrupt and abused. Regardless, there's no easy fix.
And what I said before is not "BS," to argue otherwise is ignorant. There are only three ways to fix the problem: raise retirement ages; decrease benefits; or, raise taxes.
I suppose there's a fourth--decrease the number of beneficiaries. I'll let others figure out how that can be accomplished.
Actually, payroll taxes are indeed earmarked separately for DI and OASI. See my previous posting for the links. And as I noted, any abuse can only be a small portion of the problem with Social Security.
And what I said before is not "BS," to argue otherwise is ignorant. There are only three ways to fix the problem: raise retirement ages; decrease benefits; or, raise taxes.
I posted some links earlier: raising retirement age, by itself, won't solve the problem. Raising taxes by 50% -- again -- will kick the can down the road quite a ways, postponing the inevitable for a future generation. Decreasing benefits to the level that can be sustained by the incoming taxes -- and continuing to adjust benefits as taxes shrink -- is the only way to sustain Social Security in its current form.
I suppose there's a fourth--decrease the number of beneficiaries. I'll let others figure out how that can be accomplished.
Actually, you are close: what is really needed is to increase the ratio of contributors to beneficiaries. Reducing the number of beneficiaries is one way. The other: increase the number of contributors. If every family had 3 kids, and all of them went on to get a good job and paying lots of payroll taxes, Social Security would be in great shape.