If it was just a retirement trust fund it would be ludicrous for the government to handle it in the way they do.
It...is: the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund are separate funds that pay for different programs administered by Social Security.
> They are using the first as a justification to plunder the second
No, “they” (who?) aren’t.
> If it was just a retirement trust fund it would be ludicrous for the government to handle it in the way they do.
The OASI trust fund is, essentially, just a retirement trust fund, but it doesn’t seem like you have a clue how SS is run.
Maybe not, but then again, I've been working most of my adult life for an employer of the kind that can be exempt (but which is opted-in) from SS.
> Why can’t I defer my SS payments by paying an equal amount into my 401k?
You can't opt out of the defined-benefit safety-net retirement backstop by putting more money into a no-guaranteed-benefit personally-directed retirement plan because... of the whole point of having a backstop.
> If the purpose is to prevent society having to support elderly workers who failed to save anything that would also tick the box
No, it wouldn't.
Not only is money I am taxed for social security gonna get way shittier returns than a 401k, I am hesitant to believe social security will look the same way it does today when I am retirement age in ~35 years.
401k's do not have any guarantee, even in theory. You absolute should have some retirement plan outside of social security (which is, after all, just a backstop for that failing.)
> I am hesitant to believe social security will look the same way it does today when I am retirement age in ~35 years.
Well, I’m old enough that I've been hearing that refrain for more than 35 years, and have seen the math on the necessary changes to bring revenue and benefits in to line even if no action is taken before trustnfund exhaustion, and I haven't seen any sign that the radical damages some people try to use the threat of trust fund depletion to gain support for will become politically viable, so I am relatively confident that SS will remain in a recognizable form well into the future.
There's no reason SS is age based and not means based
Honestly we should allow people to opt out entirely if they can demonstrate that they are adequately funding their own retirement/disability on their own plan.
Social Security as it exists now is a Ponzi scheme.
Only if younger generations disappear Children-of-Men style.
Political support for Social Security has always been based on the proposition that it is universal and that the benefit reflects contribution. While not required by law -- Social Security taxes are an ordinary income tax per the US Supreme Court -- this has been the explicit contract the government has made and reaffirmed repeatedly with the people for generations. It is an embedded part of the institution of Social Security.
Fundamentally changing the rules at this point would be viewed as a serious violation of trust between the people and the government, at a time when that trust is already at historic lows. Pragmatic politicians also understand that this would greatly erode support for Social Security taxes, since willingness to pay that 12.4% income surtax is strongly connected to the conception that this money will be returned to them in old age. Most politicians have the survival instinct to not even suggest this is not the case, legal technicalities aside.