Social Security is the nation's oldest entitlement program and one of its most cherished. Basic math reveals Social Security's current woes in the coming years. People think of Social Security as a retirement account, but it yields a terrible return rate (Davies "Nature of Social Security ; Gillespie; Sowell). Social Security has made promises to future retirees that it cannot keep in full. Research done by the left leaning Urban Institute estimate that practically all people retiring in 2010 or later will receive far less in benefits than they paid into the system via payroll taxes, also known as contributions. Today's new retirees are expected to outlive the Social Security Trust Fund by two years, according to the annual report from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees (Graham). Nobody would stand for that in a voluntary private retirement plan (Gillespie). All the money the government took out of your paycheck in Social Security payments is gone (Sowell; Stossel). The Social Security payments of current workers are paying the current retirees Social Security benefits (ibid). There is a need to change the system; I would like a system where the individual is in charge of a private retirement account. In the year 2033, the Social Security trust fund will be insolvent (Adelmann). This is a major factor in planning for retirement and even more so to the people who are entering retirement. Economist Paul Krugman, as supporter of Social Security, says if nothing at all is done, the system will be able to pay most of its scheduled benefits. The system will only be able to pay 75 percent of current benefits to retirees, according to the most recent report by the Social Security's trustees (Evkall; Gillespie). While it may be able to pay some benefits, they will be considerably cut back. There are different ideas on how to solve this problem. Some supporters of Social Security would like to leave it as is, raising or eliminating the wage cap on Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. This would presumably raise revenue to pay for the revenue shortfall of the system. Others, like Paul Krugman, say Social Security is fine as is and is not a problem and basically claims Social Security is solvent because the government is always going to be here to make those payments. This claim is putting too much faith into politicians that have failed to make necessary changes to Social Security for decades. "Actuaries warned the system would go broke in the 1970s. Congress cut benefits and raised taxes in 1977. The Greenspan Commission warned the program was going bust in 1983. The Reagan administration applied bandages by taxing some Social Security income and speeding the timing of payroll tax increases (Evkall). This problem was not caused by one single action. It was cause by multiple actions throughout the decades that did nothing but kick the can down the road for another congress or administration to handle. Both of the major political parties were responsible for the mess. This is why I would prefer a more definite solution to the problems of Social Security; the solution would be to convert Social Security into a private retirement system without government interference. This would give the future retiree full control of, who and where, their money is going to. Private retirement accounts would shift the younger generations from paying into Social Security to invest in a private retirement investments their own choosing. The current Social Security system creates somewhat of a government monopoly on retirement accounts due to the diversion of assets from an individual to the government. If this diversion was not taking place, the money could be invested into private retirement accounts. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) contributions must be paid to Social Security in order to pay finance it. (CNN; Friedman "Capitalism and Freedom ; Gillespie). "Social Security ˜contributions' are not contributions at all, but taxes. Were they contributions, the money collected would go into an account in the worker's name. Instead, the money collected is paid into the Treasury like any other tax and is not earmarked in any way (Davies "The Nature of Social Security ). Social Security taxes are not guaranteed to be given back to the payer. In a Supreme court case, Helvering v. Davis, the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, ˜The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way'(Turner). The Supreme Court, in Flemming v. Nestor, has ruled that you have no right to Social Security. Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is basically a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other (Turner). These court ruling is one of the most troubling pieces to Social Security. If it was truly supposed to be a re