I’m not arguing with the way it is. I’m just saying it is misleading to call it welfare in the modern sense of the word. The word entitlement is used with SS payments, but that’s equally misleading. It is a deferred payment scheme, and a bad one from an investment sense, as you point out. Personally, I think I should have the option to quit SS and, upon signing those rights away, my employer would still have to pay his share, but I can direct it to where I think it should be. This also means I have a titled asset should I die. Bush tried to get this through, but people said “it’s too complicated...I don’t know anything about investing!” So, because the average voter has the economic IQ of dust, all of us are screwed.
No, “welfare” and “entitlement” is the correct term. It has all the hallmarks: redistribution of income and means testing. The fact that you were forced to participate doesn’t make it any different.
However, I think you have the right idea for reform: the ability to opt out or at least switch to directing your contributions (and your employer’s contributions on your behalf) to a titled asset.
The problem is the transition period: current employees will have to pay taxes to fund the benefits for those that have already retired. And that will be on top of their own contributions.
Beneficiaries (like me, in about a decade) really have to step up and accept lower benefits, in exchange for reducing the burden on our children, and eliminating it for our grandchildren.
Back in the 80’s, it would have been much easier to do this. It was obvious that Social Security was unsustainable, but they just raised taxes and kicked the can a little farther down the road. Now, it will be much more difficult. And every year we wait, it will get harder.