My description, to which you now say you agree, differs from the current system only in DEGREE OF BENEFIT. To wit, the current SS system provides the aged with more than bare subsistence. Therefore, to address the issue directly, you should merely argue for a reduction in benefits, thereby requiring lower taxes, thereby leaving more to you. The "privatize" red herring was invented by snake oil selling politicians who don't have the guts to approach the issue directly. If I can achieve a higher return ( I know, Social Security isn't an investment and doesn't really have a return) can't we keep the same benefits in place? How should the gutless politicians approach the issue?
How should the gutless politicians approach the issue? By arguing for either a.) reduced benefits, b.) need's based benefits, or c.) alternative nvestment vehicles for surplus
I would be positively disposed to sensible, well thought out proposals along any or all of these three lines.