Best way to reform Social Security?

[Storebought]

...but I think we can all agree that if we keep the current plan going, were screwed. 

No!  Thats just right-wing propaganda.  The current plan is great, we just need to increase taxation of the wealthy, who have been getting away with not paying social security taxes, and increase benefits for the poor.

Indeed, the system itself is in good shape. We will need to raise taxes somewhat to continue funding it, however.

We're lucky we have such a high birth rate, because social security really is in trouble in countries like Germany (where the birth rate is under 1.5). The birth rate in the U.S. is more than 2.0 per woman, basically ensuring that the system itself will survive.

The Social Security Administration disagrees with you:

Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees for many years, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are nearing retirement, and the birth rate is lower than in the past. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16.5-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

If Social Security is not changed, then by about 2041 payroll taxes will have to be increased, the benefits of today's younger workers will have to be cut, or some other source of revenue, like transfers from general revenues, will be required. Social Security's Trustees state, "If no action were taken until the combined trust funds become exhausted in 2041, then the effects of changes would be more concentrated on fewer years. For example, payroll taxes could be raised to finance scheduled benefits fully in every year starting in 2041. In this case, the payroll tax would be increased to 15.94 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041 and continue rising to 16.60 percent in 2082. Similarly, benefits could be reduced to the level that is payable with scheduled tax rates in every year beginning in 2041. Under this scenario, benefits would be reduced 22 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041, with reductions reaching 25 percent in 2082.”

And, truth be told, the decrease in benefits will be far larger than a mere 25% -- we are talking about retiring baby boomers after all.

[Storebought]

As has been said, the retirement age will need to be raised a little, we can remove the cap, and cut benefits to the wealthy.

Social security is exactly what the name sounds like:  ensuring that your likely reduced retirement income (back from the day of pensions) plus the social security benefits equals a similar quality of life to what you enjoyed while working without actually having to work.

The poverty rate among senior citizens would be drastically higher if it weren't for social security and that situation would likely put a huge damper on the economy as the elderly would be forced to move in with children (if they have them) or onto the streets where we would have to pay for the consequences, as well as a lowered life expectancy.

It would probably be more expensive once you factor in higher emergency medical costs, setting up homeless shelters, putting a burden on younger working families (who would have to make room for and care for their elderly parents)... it would be a major disaster..

and as easy as it is to stand on the sidelines and wave your finger screaming "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY", you'd be paying a much higher price just to prove a point.

Why should an older person have an income equal to their working years? They've already paid off their mortgage; their children have moved out (or at least have not boomeranged back); they don't need to commute; their medications and hospital bills are already taken care of by taxpayers through Medicare. As it is, Social Security should be just enough to cover food and utility bills (possibly rent) for a married couple -- the numbers can be determined by the Labor Dept.

Remember this: Every dollar transferred to the elderly today by current workers is a walloping $1500* that does not go into supporting yourself in your own dotage, increasing your burden
to all workers, not just those of one's immediate family.

And, yes, personal responsibility is a prerequisite for retirement planning in any event. It takes decades of saving, of consistently living below ones means, to fund a retirement even after including SS as a source of old age income.

*That is the amount of saving just one dollar per month for 30 years in an account that has a real return of 8%.

[Storebought]

Why should an older person have an income equal to their working years?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And why should taxpayers fund someone's leisure? SS is meant to prevent destitution caused by inability to work due to old age or illness, not to be a jealous and greedy taxpayer-funded ticket to an unearned good life. 

They've already paid off their mortgage

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some 76% of retired people own homes -- I believe that is a safe assumption to make.

As it is, Social Security should be just enough to cover food and utility bills (possibly rent) for a married couple -- the numbers can be determined by the Labor Dept.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't this the "Political Debate" thread?

And, to answer your question, in a war between the ant and the cicada, the cicada will of course win.

Increasing the transfer of wealth from young, asset-poor wage earners starting families and mortgages and careers, to wealthy retirees living the high life (by your own admission!) on the wage earner's dime, would be a far more disastrous long-term proposition for SS than simply decreasing current benefits to ensure that all current workers will see some income distribution from SS when they need it.

And, yes, personal responsibility is a prerequisite for retirement planning in any event. It takes decades of saving, of consistently living below ones means, to fund a retirement even after including SS as a source of old age income.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does that even mean? Wealth only need be acquired once during a lifetime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

8% is the long-term return for a balanced portfolio in a tax-advantaged account. Even after including inflation, you will still get 6% if you held mostly US and developed-nation stocks. I stand by my numbers.