This is unsound policy. They can t have it both ways. Privatization proponents also ignore transition costs and overhead. The administrative cost of the existing system is less than 1 percent of what is paid out each year in benefits, whereas privatized systems in Chile and Britain spend almost 20 percent of their revenue stream on overhead, including such corporate necessities as advertising, sales agents, and executive bonuses. Transition costs will also be large.
Privatization involves a fundamental and risky overhaul of a program that is working well, overall.
There would be numerous complications involved in deciding under what circumstances workers could access their private accounts. Since the overall system is sound, there is no reason for the government to enter this administrative morass. Small changes would be sufficient to fix some of the problems in the system, and ensure its long-term health. Make gradual changes to benefits and the revenue structure, as needed. If a small amount of additional revenue is in fact needed, this can be providing by raising the income cap on Social Security taxes or expanding the tax to cover executive bonuses and stock options.