Apparently, you would not be satisfied to change the investment of the surplus to reflect your investment preferences while keeping the structure and goals of SS in tact. How, then, will your system be enforced? What about people who don't make enough to fund their retirement?(Your assumption that everyone will manage to earn sufficient returns is naive). The entire monetary system has blown up in Russia, Malaysia, Thailand, Argentina, and Brazil, but I guess you believe it can't happen here.
What if, they will need your employer's contribution plus half of your contribution for the next 40 years before they can start lowering it? Do you still favor the program? How about if it requires 3/4 of your contribution?
I don't see the government telling you how to safely invest your money is nearly as intrusive as them taking all your money with a promise that (wink-wink) it'll be here when you need it.
The fact that so many people have been hoodwinked into thinking SS is at risk of not being able to pay is frightening to me. Apparently, people who hadn't even given the issue a second thought, were sucked in after hearing (for the umpteeth time) in the establishment press that "more people believe in flying saucers than believe SS will be there for them." There is more reason to believe the dollar and all investments in dollars will become worthless (all while the US government finds some way to honor a commitment to pensioners in whatever new system comes in) than to believe the monetary system doesn't collapse but SS does.
Investing the surplus would be a good start, but since the structure and goals of SS are mathematically suspect ( it's a pyramid scheme ) why prolong its existence?
My system will be enforced the same way it's enforced now, the money gets taken out of your paycheck, sounds simple, doesn't it? People who don't make enough money will always be there, that's not a good enough reason to screw the rest of us.
Without this huge unfunded liability out there, we can more easily provide for those people who don't have enough when they retire, just as we provide for them now. You doubt the returns of the private sector, I doubt the government. Who's being more naive? The less we give to the government, the lower the chance of the monetary system blowing up.
What if, they will need your employer's contribution plus half of your contribution for the next 40 years before they can start lowering it? Do you still favor the program? How about if it requires 3/4 of your contribution?
As I explained in my previous posts, I expect it to run a deficit until the number of recipients drops. Deficits early, surplus later. If we allow the government to take any of my contributions, they'll just waste it. I say let the government borrow at 4-6% and I'll make my higher returns.
People, corporations, governments borrow money because they think they can earn a higher return than the interest they will pay. I can't believe you don't think that private returns would be higher than treasury rates.
Well, if you believe that the surplus is sitting in a lockbox until you retire, then you'll be better off waiting for the UFO's to fund your retirement. You must not know the true demographic disaster we're heading for.
You say we need to reduce benefits and raise taxes and make the system needs based. How much would we need to raise taxes and cut benefits to make the system balance? Why not just raise taxes to 100% and let the government take care of all of our needs? It's naive to think the private sector can take care of our needs, isn't it?