# Would you reform Social Security and if so HOW? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2005, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139 "2005-02-03T06:58:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Roland\_Deschain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Roland\_Deschain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Deschain)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/1 "2005-02-03T06:58:24Z")
I am personally in favor of the “Bush” personal savings account approach with a gradual, transition. If only this plan had been part of the original Social Security Act then we wouldn’t have the situation that we do now (obviously, those nearing retirement would have to be on the subsidized version since the savings accounts take time to work). I think Bush’s best political strategy would be to get a Democratic sponsor in the Senate like Mrs. Clinton. I think she might endorse a variation of his plan in order to “move to the middle” for 2008 (she is in the almost unique position of being able to do this without worring about losing her left of center base or at least most of it anyway). I think that Bush will have a better chance of getting the savings accounts if he is willing to compromise and combine it with an increase on the cut off income for Social Security taxation to at least $120,000. It would also help to combine any reform with the fabeled “lockbox” that Gore advocated. These two measures especially if offered by Democrats would allow the initiative to have some degree of bi-partisan backing (and would probably be worth at least five or ten Democratic votes in the Senate). ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/2 "2005-02-03T07:24:55Z")
[Didn’t the Iraq war teach us anything?](http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18323) ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Deschain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Roland\_Deschain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Deschain)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/3 "2005-02-03T07:47:24Z")
Of course Clinton said many of the same things about Iraq as did Bush. Futhermore, many of us believe that invading Iraq was and continues to be the right thing to have done. However, perhaps you can explain just how it is that Bush is wrong on the subject of Social Security and is misrepresenting the issue. What are your proposals for addressing the issue? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/4 "2005-02-03T08:03:23Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > If only this plan had been part of the original Social Security Act then we wouldn’t have the situation that we do now I still don’t have a clear idea of what “the situation we have now” is. What exactly is the crisis? ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Deschain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Roland\_Deschain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Deschain)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/5 "2005-02-03T08:48:26Z")
Simply put we have fewer people working to support those that are retired. Futhermore, the Social Security Trust fund will start going in the red in about ten years (yes there are many billions in IOU’s in the fund but you can’t pay benefits with IOU’s). Without massive tax increases, and or benefit cuts the system will not be solvent by 2050. Furthermore, the longer that we wait to address the problem the harder it will be to deal with since many of the solutions rely upon time to be effective. I can remember Gore making a big deal about the social security problem during the 2000 election was he wrong as well? ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/6 "2005-02-03T11:06:20Z")
RD, I agree with your thinking here. I personally would like to see the entire thing privatized, the sooner the better. I wouldn’t like to see the tax increases you mention but perhaps that would work as a political expedient. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/7 "2005-02-03T12:59:07Z")
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/8 "2005-02-03T14:09:33Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > Of course Clinton said many of the same things about Iraq as did Bush. Futhermore, many of us believe that invading Iraq was and continues to be the right thing to have done. However, perhaps you can explain just how it is that Bush is wrong on the subject of Social Security and is misrepresenting the issue. What are your proposals for addressing the issue? Kevin Drum at [www.washingtonmonthly.com](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com) illustrates exactly how Bush is misrepresenting the issue: > [@](#): > > Privatizers assume that stock market returns for the next 75 years will be as high as they have been for the previous 75 years. For that to happen, economic growth for the next 75 years also needs to be roughly as high as it has been for the past 75 years. > > Real GDP growth over the past 75 years has averaged 3.4% per year. > > GDP growth is equal to productivity growth + population growth + growth in average hours worked. The trustees assume long-term labor force growth of .2% per year and no growth in average hours worked. Thus, GDP growth of 3.4% requires productivity growth of 3.2% per year. > > Warning: No one believes productivity growth will actually be that high. But given the slowdown in population growth over the next few decades, that’s the assumption we have to make in order to get 3.4% GDP growth. > > In the trustees’ model, real wage growth is closely related to productivity growth. Typically, it’s a few tenths of a percentage point less than productivity growth, which means that productivity growth of 3.2% equates to real wage growth of about 2.9%. This is 1.8 percentage points higher than the intermediate projection for real wage growth of 1.1%. > > Using the sensitivity analysis included in the trustees’ report, an increase of .5% in real wage growth equates to a decrease of .54% in the “actuarial balance” — a measure of how big the Social Security deficit will be in 75 years. Thus, 1.8 percentage points of additional real wage growth equates to a drop of 1.94 percentage points in the projected Social Security deficit. > > The current intermediate assumption is that the long-term deficit equals 1.89% of taxable payroll. If you subtract 1.94, you get a long-term deficit of -.05%. In other words, you get a surplus of .05% of taxable payroll. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/9 "2005-02-03T14:18:14Z")
Another part of the plan that Bush is, well, not being forthcoming about is the “benefits offset” portion. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59136-2005Feb2?language=printer](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59136-2005Feb2?language=printer) > [@](#): > > Under the White House Social Security plan, workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system.[…] > > Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent. > > That money would augment a guaranteed Social Security benefit that would be reduced by a still-undetermined amount from the currently promised benefit.[…] > > Under the system, the gains may be minimal. The Social Security Administration, in projecting benefits under a partially privatized system, assumes a 4.6 percent rate of return above inflation. The Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill’s official scorekeeper, assumes 3.3 percent gains. > > If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today’s dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 – or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker’s. Make sure you ask about “benefits offset” when discussing the “personal accounts” plan with anyone. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/10 "2005-02-03T14:27:58Z")
What I would do is: 1- Means test benefits. If you’re wealthy in retirement from the fruits of your labor, bully for you. If you don’t need the SS checks, you don’t get them. 2- Eliminate ceiling on contributions. Tweak points 1 and 2 until a balance is achieved. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/11 "2005-02-03T14:31:14Z")
Aside from doing bizarre things like reducing deficits and maybe adjusting rates to compensate for demographic trends, I’m not convinced at this point any “reform” is needed. This Republican bugbear (Social Security is broken! We must change (read: destroy) it!) gets trotted out perrenially when the GOP needs to up the ballot count. Thankfully for all concerned, cooler heads prevail: The guaranteed part of our retirement fund isn’t gutted and/or squandered, and the pubbied get to say, yet again, “Y’see! It’s those damn big-govt-obstructionist Dems robbing America’s youth to feed spendthrift and unfrugal seniors!” Yeah, call for unity, and then pit generation against generation so you can callously erode any and all taxation intended to level the playing field a smidge. It’s the “Compassionate Conservative” way. A little corporate welfare in the form of mandatory stock investments never hurts. They’re all about “laissez-faire” markets. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/12 "2005-02-03T14:39:38Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > Simply put we have fewer people working to support those that are retired. Futhermore, the Social Security Trust fund will start going in the red in about ten years (yes there are many billions in IOU’s in the fund but you can’t pay benefits with IOU’s). Without massive tax increases, and or benefit cuts the system will not be solvent by 2050. Furthermore, the longer that we wait to address the problem the harder it will be to deal with since many of the solutions rely upon time to be effective. I can remember Gore making a big deal about the social security problem during the 2000 election was he wrong as well? A couple of points, here: [ol] [li]There are not “many billions in IOUs” in the trust fund. There are many billions in T-Bills. This is a big difference, since the government cannot choose to stop honoring these, and so the money, for all intents and purposes, _is_ there.[/li][li]It’s not true that the only way the system stays solvent until 2050 is with massive tax cuts and benefit increases. First of all, it’s entirely possible that the system will stay solvent due to higher than predicted economic growth. Over the past decade or so, the date of “crisis” has been continually pushed back as economic growth has exceeded expectations.[/li][li]Even then, it’s possible that only minor decreases in benefits, or minor increases in taxation (to the tune of one or two percent of GDP) will be required to keep the system solvent in 2042.[/li][li]It is disingenuous to claim that to keep Social Security solvent as it stands now would require coming up with a lot of money (either through tax increases or benefit cuts) and use that as an argument for privatization. After all, to partially privatize Social Security now would also require coming up with a lot of money (to the tune of 2 _trillion_ dollars over just the first decade of the transition), while _still_ guaranteeing a benefit cut down the line.[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/13 "2005-02-03T14:49:51Z")
Oops, I forgot to say what I would do to fix Social Security. First, I don’t agree with more aggressive means testing. I think that Social Security has stayed popular across all demographic groups because it is very obviously _not_ “welfare for old people.” The very fact that everyone who pays in gets something out keeps it from being too redistributionist for the American palate. However, I don’t think that it’s necessary to bother with making any specific changes _right now_ (as opposed to later). The CBO’s most recent report actually pushed back the date when the SSA would start drawing from the trust fund by two years. I think that it’s better to wait until the “crisis” is more “iminent” (using, y’know, the accepted definition of those terms, rather than the Administration’s) before looking into ways to fix it. My proposed fix centers around two things: a) a slight increase in payroll taxes, whether through increasing the cap, increasing the percentage, or both (note: this has been done several times before, so it’s not as if it were unprecedented) and b) a potential slight decrease in benefits (note, this is _potential_ not guaranteed, as in privatization schemes). I also think that it’s necessary to get the nation’s fiscal house in order so that, if some short term borrowing is necessary to ease the transition of this, it will not be severe, and it will not be added onto an already large deficit. As a note, the current deficit runs approximately 3% of the GDP. If payroll taxes were increased by 1-2% of the GDP, Social Security would stay solvent well beyond the 75 year planning horizon of the SSA. That sort of puts things into perspective, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/14 "2005-02-03T16:55:14Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > Futhermore, the Social Security Trust fund will start going in the red in about ten years (yes there are many billions in IOU’s in the fund but you can’t pay benefits with IOU’s). **MilTan** responded to your points very well. But, I do need to add something here. It is the height of chutzapah on Bush’s part to blame Social security for the fact that we have to start paying back what we have borrowed from it. An analogy might be in order here: Let’s say that I borrow money every year from my rich uncle. Now, my uncle tells me that his finances are such that he won’t be able to loan me money forever and, in fact, in another 13 years, he is going to have to start asking me to pay it back. You and Bush would apparently blame my uncle for this problem. Of course, the chutzpah is made even greater by the fact that we were getting our fiscal house outside-of-social security in order before Bush came into power. In fact, in 2000 for the first time the total federal surplus was actually a tiny bit larger than the social security surplus…so in other words, we didn’t have to borrow from the social security trust fund money. Bush has shot all of this to hell. He is right that we have a problem coming due in 2018 or so when we have to stop borrowing from our rich uncle and start paying him back, but it not due to any fault with our uncle! The final point is that the private accounts do nothing to offset this problem. In fact, they make it worse over the short and medium term and only a tiny bit better, by the best estimates, in the long term. [Here](http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5666&sequence=0) is the CBO study on one of the social security plans that the commission came up with. Note (Tables 1A and !B) that nearly all of the gain in solvency to the fund under this plan even in the long term comes not from the private accounts but from the change in how benefits are indexed…from indexing by wages to indexing by prices. Also note that nearly everyone who is born up to the date 2010 (which is as late a cohort as they study) gets more money under the original social security plan than under the new plan. This includes the effect of the private accounts and is true **even if we assume that once the trust fund goes broke (which CBO estimates to occur in 2052) then the benefits are cut so that the total benefits paid is just equal to the amount coming into the fund each year** (see Table 4). I strongly suggest you read through and digest this study before you make further statements about all this. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/15 "2005-02-03T17:52:53Z")
**Roland:** _I am personally in favor of the “Bush” personal savings account approach with a gradual, transition. If only this plan had been part of the original Social Security Act then we wouldn’t have the situation that we do now (obviously, those nearing retirement would have to be on the subsidized version since the savings accounts take time to work)._ Remember what the political/economic situation was like when [FDR signed the Social Security Act in 1935](http://www.francesperkins.org/fdr.html), though. The pressing need was to start providing income support for the **current** crop of old people (who as a group were even harder-hit than others by the Great Depression), not to start building up savings for young workers’ retirements decades in the future. FDR’s Committee on Economic Security also felt that it was important to get old-age benefit payments moving through the depressed economy soon, to stimulate recovery, rather than just accumulating them as savings for another few decades. And at that time, a scant six years after the great financial crash of 1929, people may not have been as optimistic as they are now about the prospect of leaving their retirement savings in the stock market and banks for decades on end. In any case, once the “pay-as-you-go” approach is chosen over a “save-for-yourself” one, it becomes impossible to switch over without incurring hefty transition costs: some generation of workers has to pay double while the system is being changed. **Roland:** \*Simply put we have fewer people working to support those that are retired. \* But that in itself is not necessarily a problem. The worker-to-retiree ratio has fallen from 16:1 in 1950 to 5:1 in 1960 to 3:1 at present, but the Social Security system is nonetheless currently generating a **surplus**. It’s true that as the worker-to-retiree ratio continues to decrease as the baby boomers age, the surplus will diminish and eventually turn into a shortfall. But the ratio won’t continue to decrease forever: it will stabilize at about 2:1, according to the forecasts I’ve seen (including ones from SS privatization supporters). It’s possible that further productivity increases and economic growth will actually keep SS solvent even at a 2:1 ratio of workers to retirees. But even if that best-case scenario doesn’t happen, there’s no need to worry about an imaginary worst-case scenario of an ever-shrinking worker/retiree ratio. I mean, think about it: under what circumstances could we possibly get a demographic situation with more retirees over 70 than workers between, say, 25 and 70? If a whole generation of women decided not to have babies? If we increased the average life expectancy to 115 years of age? These things aren’t going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/16 "2005-02-03T18:02:27Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > What I would do is: > 1- Means test benefits. If you’re wealthy in retirement from the fruits of your labor, bully for you. If you don’t need the SS checks, you don’t get them. This punishes the thrifty, the responsible people. It tells everyone, “Don’t bother trying to save for your retirement because, if you do, you won’t get any SS payments. Spend all your money while you’re young, blow it on fancy vacations and luxury cars, and SS will take care of you later.” Not a great message. SS isn’t welfare - it’s a pension. No pension that I’m aware of comes with a means test. You’re right on target about the contribution cap, however. I believe I’ve heard (no cite at the moment) that removing that cap would ensure the health of the SS system for the next century, and we wouldn’t have to make any other changes at all. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/17 "2005-02-03T18:03:13Z")
I haven’t read anywhere in these SS posts where anyone has taken into account the average life expectancy. Guess what. According to the CDC its 77.2 years. (2001 data)Well damn if that isn’t only 12 years after someone aged 65 begins to collect SS. So on the average I only get to recieve SS for 12 years. BTW you only get to recieve it for 12 years too(to be adjusted for your life expectancy). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/18 "2005-02-03T18:12:46Z")
**Plan B:** \* I personally would like to see the entire thing privatized, the sooner the better. \* Gotta think it through, though. What would be the consequences? **1) Huge transition costs.** As **MilTan** pointed out, even the partial privatization plan that Bush is pushing would be tremendously expensive. Whenever you switch from a pay-as-you-go plan to a save-for-yourself one, somebody ends up paying twice: either the generation of workers who get double-taxed during the transition period, or the future generations who have to deal with the extra trillions of budget debt if we buy the transition on credit. **2) Much more risk, but not much more choice.** People like the idea of private Social Security accounts because they figure they’d have more control over them. Actually, however, if we want to prevent catastrophic losses and heavy overhead costs, we can’t let individuals have very much control over their “private” accounts. At most, you’d be able to pick one of a few group investment plans, and you’d have no say over what they invested in. But you’d still be facing increased risks from the chance of a general market downturn as you got close to retirement, as well as the possibility of your retirement savings running out before you’re dead. **3) If SS is really “doomed”, then private accounts are “doomed” too.** The claim that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy is based on fairly pessimistic predictions about future economic growth. **However** , the stock market in which private accounts would be invested **also** depends on economic growth. If the economy really starts performing so crappily that Social Security can’t pay its obligations, then investments will be performing crappily too, and your private account will be a poor investment. If, on the other hand, the economy does well, then Social Security funds will do well too, and the system’s not in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/19 "2005-02-03T18:45:47Z")
The ‘reform’ I would suggest is reducing slightly the COLA, raise the retirement age away out in the future and do a little bit of this, a little bit of that, such as a small raise in the maximum income. A reform I think could have very positive effects over time I have not seen anyone propose – allowing the “special issues” which are issued by the government to the social security trust to be resold by the SSA in the open market, and placing those decisions entirely in the hands of the SSA. Open marketi selling places SSA in direct competition with overall government debt operations and these effects would be more difficult to hide and more immediate in financial consequences. Right now, these Treasuries can only be redeemed by the government, meaning the government can(and does) manipulate things. Politicans will of course take the least politically damaging solution and backslide for a long as possible. Allowing the Social Security folks to sell the Treasuries in the open market based solely on their decisions rather than elected officials reduces this cover, forcing more timely and adequate adjustments to the system. This has been the problem since about day one – take the easiest approach, push any financial problems into the future and pocket swiching to make things look better or less bad than they are. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139/20 "2005-02-03T19:31:44Z")
I’m also against a means test, since we don’t want an influential segment of the population to have no stake in the system. Like the Bush tax cuts, many of those who would still get SS will convince themselves that they’ll be rich then and won’t, and so might support cuts. Increasing the cap, though, is very easy to do and perfectly reasonable. Another solution is increasing retirement age. As the number of younger people in the work force diminishes as a percentage of the population, this might happen anyway as more companies allow workers to stay on longer. This can match demographics. Krugman has some interesting numbers on how much the economy and market must rise in order to make privatized accounts work. I’m not qualified to judge the accuracy of this. It will definitely be a windfall for the financial sector. You know there will be a call for emergency relief for those who messed up their accounts, just like we had to bail out depositors in banks after that brilliant deregulation experiment of a few decades ago. I wonder how many times Bush has to lie in order for some people to stop believing every word he says? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-reform-social-security-and-if-so-how/288139.md?page=2)