The problem with SS is that it is based on merging two incompatible things and in doing so it becomes somewhat deceitful. The idea is to provide disability/old age insurance for the masses, a very basic welfare safety net... but it is also an attempt to do so in a capitalistic way in which people feel they are using their "own money".
As a result it is poorly aimed. Life expectancy rates based on class make SS a regressive tax of sorts. The amount missing hurts the poor more than other groups, and additionally they are less likely to ever collect. People who need it least collect more because they pay more (which only makes sense because of the convoluted pseudo-capitalist way SS was created). So naturally when trying to "save" SS, they are the first to have their earnings cut, particularly if they save (and are thus better off than those who collect)... which because of SS trying to be capitalistic in some way creates a problem. The problem is compounded of course by the fact that most people who are in the position of being cut would do better if they had invested the money instead.
On the other side... privatization. Flawed in the fact that it is deficient as a safety net for the poor and almost useless as disability insurance. It is essentially a compulsory investment program... and it is utterly useless as insurance against recession and depression.

Problem is that SS is best as a safety net... and insurance. It is worst as a false promise to the middle class, a regressive tax on the poor, and as an insolvent program.

My thought is that SS Tax should be eliminhated and that the general taxes should be raised by a smaller amount. More than anything, this is for the purpose of honesty. It's not a retirement savings plan. It's a safety net... and we already know that the government is going to use it for whatever it wants anyway... so why bother with the deceitful account idea?
The payments should continue to be defined benefit and come up at time of disability or at a particular age and continue to pass on to spouse. But instead of using convoluted formulas that give some percentage of income, sometimes taxed out... one flat amount indexed to inflation. Basic living expenses.
My thought is that for one thing... this makes the system a fair and honest safety net system rather than a government mandated retirement plan. For another... I think people might take savings more seriously if they realize that all they're getting is a minimal living expense defined in monetary terms rather than as a vague percentage of income... People will know that they will not be able to sustain their current lifestyle if they do not save. They will be living in subsidized apartments and eating Ramen noodles if they do not save sufficiently.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

You seem like a pretty smart person. Have a look at the German workers taxrates. Have a look at the combined state & Fed American workers tax rates and see if you don't find those amounts being paid into government about the same.

Then have a look at the German retirement program that pays a retiring worker the amount daily as he was receiving when he retired in wages. His lifestyle is unaffected, he doesn't need private plans to suppliment his income, he doesn't have to sell the retirement cabin in the mountains. There is no adjustments to be made, except on his rocking chair.

Bust seriously, check those two items and ask yourself why that program is not possible in America for the same amount of taxes.

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...tionkill-1.jpg