The author of the Aug. 7 column, “Millennials face raw deal on Social Security from both parties,” sounded like an employee of the financial services industry since his arguments mirror their positions so closely. Social Security is not “on the fast track to bankruptcy,” and it won’t “go broke in 2034.”

The Social Security Administration projects that, as currently formulated, reserves will be depleted by 2034 after which incoming payroll taxes will cover only 75 percent of required payouts through 2090. Therefore, we need to make up the 25 percent shortfall between projected revenues and expenditures beginning 18 years from now, to cover the projected expenditures over the next 74 years. That’s not bankruptcy, it’s a call for adjustments. Of course, the sooner we correct this discrepancy, the less burden there will be on earners and the less likely a reduction in retirement payments will be necessary.

The most effective adjustment would be to eliminate the payroll cap on taxes, immediately or through a phase-in process. Currently the cap is $117,000 and it increases slightly every year; wages and salaries exceeding the cap are not taxed at all.

Another approach is to increase the payroll tax, currently 6.2 percent of the employee’s wages and salaries up to the cap and matched by 6.2 percent paid by the employer. Perhaps an increase should only be considered on the employee’s contribution in order to protect businesses from a tax increase during the ongoing slow economic recovery. The employee, after all, is the sole beneficiary of the program so it makes sense that the beneficiary should contribute more to keep the program sustainable.

There are other less popular approaches, including delaying the age at which retirement payments are made, means testing, and taxing currently exempt investment income. That said, with some adjustments, the looming 2034 “deadline” can be avoided.

While the author correctly points out that there are far fewer employees paying in now than when the program began and there are far more retirees, those are actuarial problems, not reasons to increase risk by turning future revenues over to Wall Street. IRAs, 401(k)s and other such investment vehicles are not an effective core strategy to protect senior citizens’ financial security because of the higher risks involved and greater vulnerability of the elderly.

When today’s millennials are seniors in their 60s, they may have the mental acuity to keep track of their finances but when in their 80s, they may not. Unless one has a trustworthy family member or friend to watch over one’s finances, an elderly senior not thinking so clearly could easily fall prey to an unscrupulous financial services advisor. The defined benefit nature of Social Security eliminates that concern. Now, if a person has chosen to contribute to a separate retirement account over his or her career, that just improves that person’s prospects for a more comfortable retirement, but defined contribution programs should be ancillary vehicles, not the core of a retirement program.

Social Security is guaranteed — a defined benefit for life after the employment years have ended — which is the reason that the higher, although relatively risky, return rates of defined contribution plans cannot be achieved. A guaranteed, although relatively low, payout can be counted on and that’s a good thing for retirees.

Social Security is the nation’s defined benefit retirement program. Making it sustainable for future generations should be a goal of both political parties and everyone in all walks of life, so that senior citizens can be assured of a financially-secure, dependable stream of retirement income after years of contributing as taxpayers.

Eric Smith lives in the Noank section of Groton.