I don't have any access to the WSJ.
SSI might have some waste, fraud and abuse, but regular Social Security has among the lowest overhead costs of any program.
It needs be reformed but not for the reasons you state:
There needs to be means testing. It was never setup to be for rich or nearly rich people.
The age needs to be raised gradually over the next 30-40 years.
All should be allowed to put additional money aside tax free. Maybe a sliding scale from 5-1% depending on your earnings.
I try to get young & middle-aged people to put money into individually controlled retirement plans all the time, whether it is IRAs, ROTHs, 401Ks, 403Bs, or whatever....and it is like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. It is amazing how many people will not even contribute to a 401K plan when they are getting a 50% match from their employer.....especially when these are young, single people who are making pretty darned good wages. Social Security has its drawbacks, to be sure, but if you let everyone in this country handle their own retirement accounts, you would wind up with a full-scale disaster. The people who need to be aggressive would be too conservative, and the people who need to be conservative would be too aggressive. Oh, there are many who could do it, but there are many more who would make a total mess of it.....and what would you do with them? Let them starve, or drastically increase welfare expenditures? If you think individuals in this country today are, as a whole, capable of managing their finances, the only thing I can say is to look at the credit card debt in this country....or look at the savings rate of Americans today. This nation believes in consumption, not savings....and young people are just as guilty of that as any other segment in society. Maybe more so.
I try to get young & middle-aged people to put money into individually controlled retirement plans all the time, whether it is IRAs, ROTHs, 401Ks, 403Bs, or whatever....and it is like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. It is amazing how many people will not even contribute to a 401K plan when they are getting a 50% match from their employer.....especially when these are young, single people who are making pretty darned good wages. Social Security has its drawbacks, to be sure, but if you let everyone in this country handle their own retirement accounts, you would wind up with a full-scale disaster. The people who need to be aggressive would be too conservative, and the people who need to be conservative would be too aggressive. Oh, there are many who could do it, but there are many more who would make a total mess of it.....and what would you do with them? Let them starve, or drastically increase welfare expenditures? If you think individuals in this country today are, as a whole, capable of managing their finances, the only thing I can say is to look at the credit card debt in this country....or look at the savings rate of Americans today. This nation believes in consumption, not savings....and young people are just as guilty of that as any other segment in society. Maybe more so.
SSI might have some waste, fraud and abuse, but regular Social Security has among the lowest overhead costs of any program.
It needs be reformed but not for the reasons you state:
There needs to be means testing. It was never setup to be for rich or nearly rich people.
The age needs to be raised gradually over the next 30-40 years.
All should be allowed to put additional money aside tax free. Maybe a sliding scale from 5-1% depending on your earnings.
We've been over this before, rj. Social Security already is means tested - thru the benefit formulas and taxation. Simpson-Bowles would have done more of it. Here's an article one one couple's situation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/means-testing-to-bolster-social-security-its-already-happening/2012/02/28/gIQAP0zLlR_story.html