I ask this question in regards to another thread going on about social security and the possibility of it being underfunded. Knowing that I will not see a dime of the money I am putting into it right now agitates me because I know I could invest that same money and get a return on it.

I am not talking about privatization. I am talking about opting out all together.

Do you think an individual should be able to opt out of social security and be responsible for their own retirement if they so choose?



Edited for clarification.

Talking about opting out if SS is without a doubt going to go bankrupt, or opting out on principle?

I'm all for opting out of it, and if social security were something that wasn't automatically taken out of your check I'd likely protest by refusing to pay for it.

I suppose opting out kind of defeats the purpose of the system, but then again I want to system to be dismantled. It might be interesting to let politicians see just how many people really support social security by making this an option.

<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'> Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reason: Question to debate too vague or missing.<br /><br />Recommended action: If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.<br /><br />Helpful links:<br />- Starting New Topics<br />- Survival Guide<br />- The Rules<br />- Staff Directory</td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>

Poll questions do not count as questions for debate. The debate question must be within the body of the first post.

While the selfish part of me would like to take my money an run, I do not think it would be wise to do so.
First off look at all the people who would stop getting SS if it were to collapse. These people have been putting into it their entire lives and if we left them high an dry now it would be unfair. They would ultimately live on welfare.
Next what would happened to you and your children if you were to become disabled before your money matures? How long would your vested money last before you run out? You would ultimately live on welfare.
Finally, look at all the people whose retirement funds were wiped out because of corporate scandals? If the market were wiped out right after your retirement it might put a squeeze on your life style.

After looking at all the above scenarios I still think I should take the money and run, because life insurance will cover a disability and if you diversify your portfolio you should be able to ride out the ups and downs from the market. As for those that are currently on SS, they should have vested more and not allowed the government to raid it to fund other things.

State and local government employees with a specific king of pension, do not pay into social security. I am one of these people, there's no FICA taken out of my check, there is 8% from me and another 8% from the DC government put into the Police & Fire Retirement fund. Any SS Payments I earn from prior work, or outside employment, are reduced by my pension check...so I won't be receiving anything for the quarters I worked.

As it stands, if the option were given to opt out, even if it were required to join a defined-benefit plan, would have the net effect of taking all the payers out, leaving only low-income people who, under the current plan, generally get more out of social security than they put in during their earning years.

As an aside, it seems backwards to me to have a regressive SS tax with a progressive SS payment...I'd rather give people every oportunity to get out of poverty before they retire, with a progressive tax and a flat payment.

The idea that "my" social security payments are for "my" social security benefits is a myth. SS is not a bank account.

SS is a pay-as-you-go fund. Today's SS payments are paid out to today's claimants. "My" payments will be paid for by whoever is paying SS contributions when I make my claim, not by some notional fund built up from my payments.

Therefore opting out of SS just cheats current beneficiaries out of what they have been led to reasonably believe was their entitlement.

If you want to opt out, first pay them (current and past beneficiaries that are no longer contributing) back all of their lifetime SS contributions net of any benefits they have taken so that there is a level playing field for everyone. Then stop paying contributions.

Following generations will have to trust your assertion that you will never make a claim on their payments, though, unless SS is scrapped altogether.

In essence, SS is only "fair" over the lifetime of a whole generation. Not even then - more like over several generations. At any one time, an individual is always either 100% taking or 100% giving.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme of the worst kind: the kind that people bet their retirement futures on.

Get in early on the scheme, and you're golden: you get all of your contributions back and then some. Get in on the action late (like current Gen X'ers) and sooner or later you will be out of luck.

The worker-retiree ratio in 1950 was 16 to 1. Today, it is 3.3 to 1. In 40 years, it will be 2:1. That means that every worker will need to pay in half of someone's Social Security Check (let's say $1000 per month). $500 per month in Social Security from every single worker. Social Security tax is currently at 12.4% (very high, very regressive) currently. In the future, it could be much higher.

The system needs to be fixed. Future retirees (not current ones, who are still in the "golden" category) will see a reduced benefit which doesn't start until they are older. The system is straining under its own weight.

I believe the federal government should buy out current retirees and transfer them into a real retirement program instead of this Ponzi scheme. I think current workers should be moved to an individual account plan, keeping the current 12.4% rate. By my calculations, at a 5% interest rate, any person would be able to retire on the same income as the average of their working year's income for a retirement period of 25 years. Should the retiree die before exhausting his funds, they would be available to his estate. A much more equitable system, one which would greatly benefit lower class people by actually giving them a retirement nest egg rather than making them absolutely dependant upon a sub-standard retirement plan.

Check this site to get an idea of what the retirement income would be:
Simple Retirement Calculator
Type in 0 as the starting balance. If you contribute $100 per month ($1200 per year) A $100 per month contribution would be applicable for a person making around $9700 per year ($810 per month). Over a period of 42 years (Age 21 to Age 63) at 5% interest (and continuing to get 5% during retirement), the annual payout would be $11500 or about $960 per month which is just about what a retiree currently gets from Social Security.

Those calculations are for someone at or just above the poverty line (currently $9310 for a family of 1).

We can demonstrate that even the poorest person can get the same benefits out of Social Security through a private retirement account.

The future payments our of Social Security are estimated to decrease by up to 27% while the taxes going into Social Security are expected to rise by up to 50%. This according to the Social Security Administration, who doubtless is casting a favorable light on the situation : Social Security's Future - FAQs

We need to fix this screwed up system. The federal government should buy out current retirees (which, of course will cost many many billions). We need to face the fact that Social Security was a bad system set up with the best of intentions. We need a new system.

I can agree with Amlord, and add a bit.
A small start was allowed about 30 years ago, a start that would allow us to wean ourselves from SS. But the Individual Retirement Account has it flaws. Not so much flawed for us, but for the government. Their tax revenues were severely reduced because so many of us started IRA accounts, so our benevolent government modified it to exclude deductions for the better off among us.
The Roth IRA was probably a step in the right direction, tho.

The BIG THING that I consider bad about SS is that so many of us think that it will support us, and we consequently fail to save additional funds in IRA accounts or employee savings accounts.

I would like to see us first get back to the concept of a supplemental support system that makes us realize that we must make additional efforts on our own behalf, but then add in guaranteed government funded medical coverage that only covers the big ticket items that would tend to devastate our finances. We shouldn't have to lose all or most of our nest egg for one major surgery or a dependence on expensive drugs.

Opting out would probably be the wrong thing to do, but an across the board weaning from SS might work.

Try trillions. The federal debt is financed with over $3 trillion in Social Security funds (as of 7/30/2004).

Where are those trillions going to come from? More borrowing? That'll kill the ability for businesses to borrow (supply will dry up). Less spending? Not while a
"Reaganite" Republican -- you know, the kind that believes in spending lots more without raising taxes? -- is in charge.

Social Security isn't the "bad system". The lack of any budgetary restraint on the part of our elected officials is the real culprit. It's easier buying votes with debt than to actually do anything difficult. And it seems worse when you have both the Legislative and Executive branches run by the same party.

As it stands now, if by some miracle SS does not collapse and I actually do get money back when I retire it will be at 0% interest gained(read that ZERO). If I were able to opt out of that program now(I would be willing to give up the $15,000 I have already put in) I could put that money in ANY savings account and earn more money on it that SS would.

Social security is a "forced" savings account by the federal government at 0% interest.

Imagine the entire nation stuffing money under their mattress, just sitting there, not gaining interest. The only problem is, the government has control over that mattress and has been taking money from it over the years.. Democrats and Republicans.

Social Security was supposed to be a well intentioned remedy to fight what happened in the great depression. As well intentioned as it was, it was poorly conceived.

I'll admit it. i'm selfish. The money i LOSE to SS is money desperately needed to give myself a shot at a decent retirement. One SS can in no way provide.
I never agreed to this "bargain" and really cannot see the wisdom in the whole plan regardless. SS doesn't provide enough to be of any actual value.
I will gladly sign whatever saying I will never ask for a single bit of SS in any fashion what so ever.
Where do i sign. Want it it blood? Its doable.
Its theft. Worse it deliberately reduces my chances of pursuit of happiness. Reduces my ability to enjoy my golden years.
Hell I want the money that I earn back in my pocket.
I pay enough in taxes on everything else--SS on the Left and faith based welfare on the Right-- lemme have my SS money.
I can put it to far more productive use--which will result in higher tax revenue for all you Republicrats to leech away-- and build something I could maybe pass on to the kids--raising their standard of living, the steady upward swing from lower to middle to upper class to someday maybe the Ludicrous level--Ain't that America, for you and meee--

Thanks for not answering the question for debate... What does railing against the Republicans have to do with Social Security?

The Social Security system IS the problem. It is a terrible system conceived by people who did not think in the long term (read: forever). The system is untenable.

It will cost trillions (my reference to many, many billions). Someone has proposed selling federal land to generate the money. I estimate that the current value needed to buy out Social Security recipients and continue their benefits for the next 15 years is around $5 trillion (based upon $460 billion in outlays per year, which are growing every year). This will be very painful.

Six Social Security Myths

I thought I made that clear, but guess I just made an inference and left the conclusions up to the reader.

If our federal budget were producing a SURPLUS instead of a HUGE deficit, Social Security wouldn't be in trouble, because we could route the surplus toward paying off the money borrowed from it. But the current crowd of "we're in charge and we're owed a tax break" Republicans are continuing to run up a deficit that is 1/2 trillion per year. They're supposed to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and "smaller government". Not!! They've given up that mantle to the Democrats (!) and are bankrupting the system for their own political gain.

And anyone who votes to keep them in office deserves what they get.

Ok, I'll stop ranting now.

Great "myth" quote, by the way! I don't agree with the "it's hopeless, every man for himself!" tone of the last paragraph, but I can understand how people can get depressed with the current crop of politicians and how it's affecting our future. Now if we can only increase the volume on the debate to get our politicians to start thinking beyond their next paycheck, we might be able to get to that "Valhalla" where we CAN have a public pension plan for all.

I love your last quote, Amlord, and I think it's why making Social Security an opt-out-able won't work.

If everyone gets to opt out by making lower or zero contributions, the intention will be that they use the money to fund, or part-fund, their own retirement fund.

Many people will not do that, instead using the effective "tax cut" this represents to fund current consumption. This is short-sighted of them, but it's their prerogative. They are the grasshoppers, while the industrious and independent souls, who opted to use the money no longer taken for SS, are the ants. In principle, the grasshoppers should be allowed to die off when winter comes - they don't get to have any payment when times go hard for them.

However, grasshoppers have votes, just the same as ants do. And all votes have the same weight. What politician is going to be able to say to the grasshoppers "no, you made your bed, you will just have to lie in it" and have any hope of getting any grasshopper votes next time around?

If for no other reason, SS opt-outs should not be allowed, because the relative unfairness now wil be as nothing compared to the theoretical unfairness that would be bound to occur ten or twenty years after opt outs began. Like democracy, SS is the least worst system.

I agree with you up until that second statement. I believe the government should buy out current retirees, but as far as those of us with many years ahead of us in our working careers like you or I -- I don't think the government has any business taking money out of my check to support my retirement, I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself.

Social Security should be completely abolished for that category of workers and all employers should be required to carry a 401K plan that their employees can contribute to. If an employee chooses not to contribute that is their prerogative, and hopefully they'll win the lottery or something before retirement. But I don't need someone telling me how much to save (and putting it in a low interest bearing plan at that -- until I'm in my 40's or so I'm sticking with higher risk higher interest plans), I am perfectly capable of that myself.

So what would we wind up with if we started from scratch?

How about eliminating SS payroll taxes and requiring that amount (12.4%) to be put in a tax-free 'approved' investment vehicle? Does the employee get to choose which one their money goes to, or at least part of their money goes to?

What about the poor folks who don't make much now? Do we make contributions for them from their welfare checks?

That would be fine -- if it were optional. I don't see what business the government has in telling you how much you should be saving for retirement. If they want to help out by providing funds you can invest in? Fine. If they want to help out by educating people on the wisdom of saving $300 now and what compound interest does to that? Fine. If they want to require that all employers provide a 401K, IRA or some kind of tax-free retirement investment option? Great.

I draw the line when the government dictates that I must put 12.4% of my money in their fund to save for retirement, even if it is truely my money and they cna't touch it.

I think that one area where people really need to be responsible for their own choices is retirement. The whole reason we got into this social security debacle is because there were no real ways to save for retirement when the legislation was inacted. Some folks had pensions but the average worker most certainly did not invest in the stock market. Later we invented those alternatives but Social Security is such a huge beast and politicians so frequently "borrow" money from the fund that it would really be political suicide to rethink things.

I think I swallowed my tongue .

I also think that if we left everyone up to their own devices, we would have a similar situation to the one that lead to the creation of the Social Security system during the Depression: out of work elderly people starving and homeless on the street.

Realistically, the US is way too compassionate to allow people to starve on the streets, even if they did not plan for their own retirement. We'd end up bailing out those who chose to spend all their money now instead of saving (Julian's "grasshoppers"--love that, by the way).

The sad fact is that we have made millions of retirees dependant on the government and at this point, it would be impossible to wean them off without a lot of undue hardship. There is always going to be a percentage (a sizable one at that ) of the population who will not or can not plan for 20 years down the road.

Ideologically, I am against forcing people into doing what is best for them (saving for retirement). In this case, private accounts is a step towards getting people off the public dole. It creates incentive (actually forces it upon them) for even poor individuals to build wealth. Should they die early, it creates wealth for the family of even poor individuals, which belongs to them, not the government. It is a lot more free than the current system.

What does a worker get now if they pay their 12.4% all their life and then die, unmarried, at age 60? Nothing, zero, nada. Had that same person made $10,000 his whole life and contributed into an individual account, he would have around $150,000 to give to his children or grandchildren to help lift them out of poverty. Today, he has nothing.

Social Security robs from the poor and it keeps them poor in retirement. It simply is not that great of a system.

I am a little surprised Cube. You are in favor of national healthcare, but against social security. Interesting. To me the concepts are equivalent. They both look to take care of the needy. Remember, FDR adotpted the plan to deal with the huge number of layoffs of the elderly which resulted in a large population of people unable to take care of themselves. Is the need of the elderly an less important than the need of the sick?

Both systems require 100% participation. In the case of SS, let's remember, that the money paid out comes from taxes collected. There is no savings account per se. If you allowed people to opt out, then the system wouldn't have enough to pay those already in the system. I am in favor of removing the entire system, but I don't think that is the issue in this room. In any case, if the system is to remain, an opt out plan is not feasible.

SS funds are, in practice, general funds raised by taxes.

Allowing people to chose whether to invest or not will result in a large number of retirees with no money, and on the public dole; we'd be back to where we are now, paying them with money raised by current year taxes.

If we REQUIRED new employees to invest their 6.2% in a specific list of funds (tax-free) and required employers to match that 6.2% in a different list of funds (tax-free) we could eliminate these employees' SS tax liability and future SS payments.

We could then use existing employees SS taxes, SS Trust fund, and OTHER taxes to pay for the employees already in the SS system. This would require raising taxes / cutting other spending as the baby-boom cohort passed through retirement and then died off, but we'd be left with a system that was self-funding and not a pyramid scheme.

The new/old break could be played with, perhaps by requiring a certain percentages of the "SS money" to go one way or the other for employees with different times until retirement.

No matter which way you cut it, we're either cutting retirees benefits in terms of age &/or amount(a political impossibility), raising taxes, or cutting spending elsewhere.

Are you sure? And what of administrations that encourage private, religious institutions to provide the charity and that try to drop any governmentally-administered system that they say smacks of socialism? Not everybody is compassionate in government these days--not everybody on AD is compassionate! Think of every AD poster who has written the phrase, "I don't want the government spending my money on [insert governmental social assistance program here]!"

And what of those older folks who lost their shirts by investing heavily in Enron? They thought they had it made, didn't they? Lucky that they still had Social Security to fall back on when the fecal matter hit the fan. Without Social Security, they might have had no safety net at all.

So what if a person "opts out" of Social Security and invests heavily in the next Titanic of the stock market? S/he will still have to live, right?

Social Security needs to be fixed, not scrapped. It's not just the grasshoppers who benefit from having it.

Well... investing in the stock market with your money is certainly one option but depending on what age you are that doesn't really make it a smart move.

401K's are the way to go, and they can honestly be as risky or conservative as the individual is comfortable with. Mine is very aggressive, but I'm not retiring for decades. Someone in their 50's is probably going to stick with safe, lower interest funds.

If the government wants to spend money on people's retirement they should help fund the planning aspect of that, they shouldn't fund retirement itself. Of course those already in the system or soon to be in the system would have to be dealt with, but you have to draw the line somewhere and just cut it off.

What are people going to be saying in 5 to 10 years when the baby boomers are retiring and all of a sudden you are forking over 15 to 20% of your check instead of 12%?

It seems this topic is posing the question whether it should be a choice to opt out of SS. The topic is not dealing with whether SS should be overhauled or scrapped. In its current state, I cannot imagine a way to allow people to "opt out" without paying for this decision in higher taxes or worse later on. And anyone here who has read anything I have written previously, understands how much I detest the entire concept of SS.

All things considered I think that this is impossible. If people actually saved their money from their working years for retirement, then we wouldn't need retirement. However, not that many people do that. And I, for one, cannot let Grandma just die off. So, we need social security.

maybe we can make so the government cant barrow money from it, is that impossible or something. I don’t think we should get rid of it, not without some solid plan on how people will make it, being the economy is not always perfect itself and people do live in poverty and die on the street, but that is another debate. If some system that was more effective came about that was reachable by everyone that could work, i am not saying social security does this, i don’t see why not. Though just as the government nabs cash, what is to stop private companies or so on from doing the same? again i just don’t see something that is better, and really social securities real issues are government oversight of such a system, in regards to itself and the people that use it or pay into it. I do opt for an overhaul on how it works in regards to full visibility of information on it, then some kind of planning, and overall, i also don’t see why people cant at some point in time choose to opt out on their own, but then this would bring up a problem would it not, as in the have mores vs. the have less type idea, as in how many poor to middle class and the various shades of those vs. the rich, and do the rich really need social security. i see it like most things in America as something that takes the most toll on the middle class, and like most i don’t really see politics and such aimed at them primarily, or the elderly or sick or the American citizens at large not capable of self defense. would social security fail if just the poor paid into it, i would imagine so, what about the middle class, or the rich? i agree that social securities main ills are government interaction and health of a nation really. overall, i just see that opting out is what kind of a solution, or more of the same with a different face, and the issue itself then just gets covered up more or less. I do guess overall you can see why different political groups differ over the issue, to just look at a groups composition you can see why, but i feel the complexity of it like most is not visible fully or really understood enough to make a decision in my mind at this time.

I agree that Social Security needs some major changes, but making the tax optional, any tax optional is not a viable system.

Since the question is limited in scope I'll stick to the center of the idea.

Social security is more than retirement benefits and pretending that the system is based on the full amount of dollars that is contributors puts into is a false scenario.

Opting out would not be a system that could fix anything for our elderly. Before 1964 the elderly were among the most likely to be living in poverty. While the war on poverty had serious flaws that have largely contributed to making liberal a dirty word associated with the phrase tax and spend, social security is largely responsible for helping lift the elderly into on of the most affluent age groups in our society and allowing many middle class forty and fifty somethings to use there revenues on things other than supporting their parents.

Okay, I tried not to stray, but I did a little.

All these emotional phrases I am hearing in this thread:

"Elderly in Poverty"
"cannot let my grandma die off"
"no safety net at all"

Makes for a nice straw man, but does nothing for the fact that since its inception social security is the government taking money from our checks saying "We know you are not wise enough to put money aside so we are going to do it for you"

Now that being said, if the government were to let us earn interest on that money I would find that acceptable.

If social security is a "safety net". Then what is to stop the government from adding a new tax to our income to make us get health insurance. But here is the catch, they set all the terms of the health insurance and the coverage. Just like social security.

As for the government allowing people to earn interest on social security, this ignores several comments on this thread about how social security works and what all it pays for.

I do agree in theory about the concern of interest. Our system is presently taxing workers regressively today for benefits that won't be realized until well in the future. At the same time wealthy tax payers pay top dollar for tax payment schemes that defer taxes on today's income well into the future and get to hold onto 100% of the sheltered money today and have that money pay interest to them. The worker gets gets to defer savings into the future at a double 7.2% (i believe) rate from dollar one. This keeps real wages down as both taxes are taken into account before an employer makes a hire. The wealthy person gets to stop paying the regressive tax almost entirely at around $90,000 income and is free to divert savings into tax deferment shelters and gain that much more out of their income.

I say take the payroll taxes out of the equation and lump it into the income tax system.

Finally, in terms of a social welfare net, nothing stops the government from going to state funded health care. Heck I think that would make it easier for companies to hire american workers instead of choosing international options.

Do you think an individual should be able to opt out of social security and be responsible for their own retirement if they so choose?


No, this is not workable. SS is set up to where your dollars today are paying for other's current retirement. If you opt out--who is paying for those retirees? No one--so, the system would quickly fall apart. Also, those paying in the most would be the very ones most likely to opt out, making the problem even worse. The only potential resolution to this is something along the lines of what Bush proposed-taking a percentage out of your SS Tax (about the same percentage that is supposed to be going into the trust fund, but isn't)--and convert that into some sort of individual retirement account. You could probably allow people to opt out of that part, since it isn't supposed to be going towards current retirees anyway.



Wouldn't Valhalla be where no public pension plan were necessary? I think you've got in mind another town, slightly lower on the mountain

To 'opt-out' of SS is like making a promise that you really, really won't call upon the Army to defend your home-- really, I promise, dude, no way, not me.

Nevermind that your neighbor's home gets defended and you get the benefit for nothing.

We all know that if old people are in severe distress, they'll get at least some help, regardless of the idiotic promises they made when they were youngsters.

This is a good point, however, not entirely true: There would still be assistance programs for the poor, however, the social security benefits would be gone.

There are one of three ways to make SS solvent: increase the age for receiving benefits; reduce the benefits compared to the contributions; or increase the returns on contributions (through private investment).

People's payments are calculated on their contributions, and are progressive in that lower annual contributions recieve a higher percentage of payments.

If people were allowed to opt out for a portion of their payments, the benefits would have to be recalculated so they did not get the 'progressive' portion of their SS benefits as well as the returns on their investment.

From an idealist moral standpoint, I believe that the fruit of each man's labor belongs to him and him only: his wages are his own. I have no problem with compulsory health insurance, disability insurance, retirement plans or medical savings accounts; however, they must, in each case, be funds dedicated to the individual wage earner. This idea working requires an idealized free market, which we don't have yet.

I am of the opinion that we SHOULD allow opting out of SS, with the requirement that individuals pay into certain carefully regulated funds, and the individuals completely forgo future SS disbursements.

For the record, I do not make SS contributions, nor will I recieve any benefits upon retirement. State & Local government employees with a defined-benefits contribution plan do not participate in the SS system. Prior to working for the gov't, I had made enough contributions to qualify for SS, however, they are reduced by my pension payments, which will mean I receive nothing from SS.
I wouldn't want it any other way.

SS is not a "retirement savings" program- it's a welfare program for people over 65. It's clearly not fair to force everyone to pay extra taxes for the benefit a limited segment of the population.

Welfare programs are a good way to provide people with a sort of "disaster relief" should they loose their grasp in life but, it doesn't make sense to me to have a dozen separate welfare programs, one for each segment of the population. Most of the benefits that are offered under existing welfare programs basically amount to the same thing- money, food and health care. If everyone pays, everyone should be covered.

So, I suggest that we replace all existing welfare programs with a single universal welfare program paid for out of the federal budget- not by a separate tax. It would guarantee a minimum set of conditional benefits and services to people based on their particular situation. If you're a low income parent, you get some kind of family benefits; if you're handicapped or get injured, you get some kind of disability benefits and if you can't afford retirement, you get senior benefits.

I still feel that the system needs to be worked on yes, but not done away with or even to allow for taxpayers to opt out. I do think that when something of a better alternative, something realistic comes about, for americans, then you have something politicians could use to defeat whatever social security has in terms of short comings. I still feel that the problems social security faces are the same current retirement options face in the private sector, and at least the federal government should not have to face going bankrupt. I mean is the stock market the same day to day or minute to minute really, and in terms of the economic spectrum in america, in terms of the reality of it, not everyone makes enough money to pour into a 401k or something related even while working hard or just plain working. No the poor in my opinion cannot float social security, again its not something the rich need, and in their position could probably use whatever money pulled into it for something else, and i think its an issue that really falls on the middle class. As for whatever is dipped into by the government, if not for that money, then how they see fit will try to get it from elsewhere. take for example the current administrations plan to increase the amount of tax money that they want to go to the defense structure, something around 500 billion a year, i dont know where all that will come from, but its in the works and so on. my point overall is that the government does not make money, and more to the point, i think the problem with social security is that people look at it as a retirement plan, when its not that at all, and i dont think that is what it was designed to do in the first place, its not called retirement security, but social security. Overall, i think the system needs to be refurbished to face what is americas reality now, socially, not to be done away with.