Social Security verbo ipso

I have been meaning to say this for awhile now, but this guy beat me to it. So, here it is from what appears to be our doppelganger (I guess I should say that we are theirs since they have been at it longer. Also, Lee seems to be smarter than I am. Also, they are more religious and they have some different links -- otherwise, the same.)

verbum ipsum: A Layman's Stab at Social Security Reform: "The deceit at the heart of Social Security has always been that by paying FICA taxes you are 'investing' for your retirement. But this is nonsense. Decades of government propaganda notwithstanding, SS is a wealth transfer program like welfare. It takes money from one group of people (young workers) and gives it to other groups of people (retirees, the disabled, their dependents, etc.). There may have been compelling reasons for pitching it as an investment plan, but basic honesty compels us to admit it ain't so.

Now, it seems to me that two things fall out of admitting that SS is a welfare program of sorts. First, there's no reason, in principle, it couldn't be funded from general tax revenue (sales, income, personal, corporate, or whatever). Second, it could be given only to those who need it. Once you've given up the fiction that people are investing in their own retirement, you no longer need to maintain that they're entitled to a return on their 'investment.' Eligibility for SS could be determined based on need (and 'need' could be defined more or less generously), which makes sense, since the whole purpose of the program was to keep the elderly out of poverty. Retired millionaires don't need that extra couple hundred bucks a month.

Funding SS out of general tax revenue would also address another problem: the FICA tax is one of the most regressive taxes we have (especially when you take into account the cap on income that is susceptible to FICA taxation). A progressive income tax (or even a flat tax) would be fairer and simpler.

I assume (contra libertarians and many conservatives) that it is meet, right, and just that society should provide assistance to those who need it. There's no shame in admitting that Social Security is a program by which we extend aid to those in need. On the contrary, the fact that it has for so long been portrayed as a kind of investment "

That just makes sense to me. I doubt that there are really many conservatives who do not think it meet to provide for the needy via government in some manner. I think it seems that way mainly because we are forced to oppose it in practice so much. Even some Libertarians are not totally against government aid (some are, of course). The debate is in the nature and amount of aid, the definition of needy and the method by which the aid is collected and distributed. But that debate is for another time.

While we are at SS reform, if we do not adopt Lee's suggestions, we should at least return the program more to its original intent. The retirement ages, for example, should be raised commensurate with actuarial changes. People live longer. It's simple and fair.

I can't find it now, but somebody wrote a piece recently about private accounts. Remember the Lock Box? Well, private accounts are the ultimate Lock Box. The government cannot get their greedy hands on the money if it resides in my Vanguard 500 Index. (Which, BTW, has earned 11.24% avg over the last ten years, the same ten years which include the horrible "crash.")