at heart. We should be talking about expanding it using it to improve the lives of our citizens.

Here we are, 12 years later, and the greedy Republicans are still trying to get their sticky little fingers on all that money in the Social Security fund.

First, the projection that Social Security tax revenues will suffice to cover 75% of benefits is based on pessimistic assumptions about long-term economic growth. There's good reason to believe that, even without any changes to the program, the revenue would cover a higher percentage, perhaps even 100%. Projecting the economy 50 years out is a chancy business. The 75% number shouldn't be taken as carved in stone. (Of course, it does represent a danger, which is why raising or eliminating the cap now would be a good idea.)

Second, I don't know where you get the figure of 7 1/2% of income as the Social Security tax. The basic underlying rule is that the employee and employer each pay 6.2% of the employee's income. Various temporary tax holidays have knocked two points off the employer's and/or employee's obligation. It may well turn out to be hard to get back to the underlying rule, but there's no circumstance under which the obligation comes to 7.5%.

Also, about your observation that it would be a "foolish gamble" for people to risk their retirement entirely on the stock market, it should be added that the gamblers wouldn't be the only ones affected. If imprudent old people are starving to death in the streets, society (i.e. we taxpayers) would step in. Social Security protects the retirees and it protects the rest of us from having to bail them out.

I am collecting social security, and without it I would be eating cat food.