Since the first congress we have had an ever expanded interpretation of our constitution. Whether you agree with it or not SS has become a cornerstone to supplement peoples private retirement funds. If we repealed it because of a text book view of the constitution we would be doing more damage than good. This would go against the spirit of the constitution. The amendment process is so corrupted by politics and special interests we would never be able to get one through even if the amendment would be a good thing for the American people. In addition the SCOTUS ruled that SS was constitutional and we have not needed to do that. At this point that ruling has allow many people to become reliant on SS as a buffer against increasing healthcare costs and the rising cost of living.
I agree that the writing of constitution could have been more specific, but I believe this is a cause of disagreements between our many forefathers on how government should work.
There are private funds that can be more profitable than SS but not as secure. Could you list some of the ideas you mentioned earlier (stock market, 401k, ect.?)?
I would agree that people have bastardized the meaning of the Constitution. On this we agree. Repealing that which is unconstitutional would cause some hardship for some, if it were not appropriately planned and phased out.
Being constitutional is going going against the spirit of the Constitution. Surely you jest. The amendment process is the correct path for altering the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The supreme law of the land says that to alter it, you must amend the Constitution. Are you saying that the Constitution is either not the supreme law or that we should ignore the rule of law? Or, are you suggesting both?
Tyranny whether coming from a single despot, from a majority, or from a Court is still tyranny and should never occur. The decisions regarding aspects of the Social Security Act were not based on the Constitution and the intent of its authors, but were done for politically expedient reasons. Here is an interesting read on the subject:
Is Social Security Constitutional? – Tenth Amendment Center
When you say, "There are private funds that can be more profitable than SS but not as secure. Could you list some of the ideas you mentioned earlier (stock market, 401k, ect.?)?", to whom were you speaking? A gentleman in another thread suggested the following concept:
1. If you like SS, you stay with the program as is, regardless of your current age or status.
2. If you wish to opt out, you may do so, but 1% of your income goes to the public Social Security plan and then you can invest the rest as you please. The 1% goes to the public funds and does not return to the individual who opted out.
The reason the person said that this was a viable plan was the 1% supposedly makes up enough dollars for those who drop out. I cannot verify that as it was his plan and not mine. Personally, I would like to see the entire program ended. While it won't matter to me, as I am retired, I would like to see the individual have his or her own account and purchase T-bills, Certificates of Deposits, or approved mutual funds. The mutual funds should need to have diversification in types of mutual funds, growth vs. income vs. international, etc. and should be purchased equally through more than two companies. The concept is to minimize the risk.
For younger people, if they began this at 16 and did it until they retired, they could amass quite a sum of money due to better returns on investment. Second, it is their money and if they die before taking the funds out, the funds go to the person's heirs. Social Security may go to the spouse, but that's it. A separate program of insurance could be found privately to deal with disabled folks.