In my standard issue word vomit I did say the issue isn't not in doing it.
It was HOW to do it. I think we are agreed, for the most part, that we want some sort of safety net for the wealthiest portion of our population, The Old People. Because some did not or could not save much through life, in part to their own or others mistakes is not really the issue.
The argument, short of this distraction, would be on
how to best utilize that money.
Because the pay-as-you-go system can only work
FOR SO LONG. It is not a sustainable system because you have to tax more and more to cover it, and that is your position - tax more going into it because right now more is going out of it than is coming in.
Our current system, however you want to name it, doesn't do any investing. It is a pass though, or Virtual Investment program that doesn't hold more than an IOU, and has a totally piss poor 'return' for money it. It is a tax that at the moment, without putting more money in from other taxes, that doesn't cover the outlay. It is a promise from current generations to help out prior generations that will only last for a finite period as ran, becoming insolvent in the near future (decades, just barely.)
Even if the system was 'uncapped' it would still become insolvent. Just later. And would 'return' less than what is going in. $100,000 paid in results in a $80,000k payout.
The modifications proposed is just taxing more and giving less back, for a longer period of time. The total Liabilities for this entitlement though is underpaid by $34 TRILLION.
Given the pay-as-you-go format, this will always be the result, and no matter how you charge
'the bad wealthy people' extra, there isn't enough money there for long.
And right now, even if solvent at the moment, the money promised to me will not be paid. It would do better just going into a bank account and getting no interest than the SS System. Uncapped or not.
Switching to even a 50/50 program, vs Uncapped results in:
No issue with insolvency.
Pay outs, or actual returns that are significantly higher than SS is or will ever be
Money invested stays in the market, increasing the GDP in total (nations has between 50% and 100% of their GDP in this fund, basically doubling national GDP.)
No new taxes needed, in fact, they could be lowered to the 9 or 10% national average for other nations and still return more.
Room to roll HSA/HDHP into the process to provide everyone with catastrophic care.
______________________
It seems like a no-brainer. There is some risk, yes. Historically though a moderate market can return several times what SS 'promises' as a 'return'. When ran against the S&P500, even just mutual funds, or bonds, a 50/50 system does remarkably better.
For the same money in, one option is very clearly a better choice.
______________________
So, no, the argument is whither you want granny to have an 80% return on her SS money put in, or 300% to 600% return on her money into SS.
To reply 'You want PEOPLE TO DIE!' means you have really lost the argument and have no position, so full speed ahead on the emotional, non-rational position.
Which seems really silly. It should be obvious I want Granny to have a lot more money and I think that would benefit her.
Why don't you?