That honor goes to the regressive, unfair system of payroll taxes that pays for those benefits. All wage-earners in America are required to kick in 7.51 percent of their earnings (the FICA tax) to the Social Security system. Even those workers who are so poor that they are exempt from the federal income tax have to pay the full FICA tax--no exemptions or deductions.

The tax is regressive because it does not apply to earnings over $48,000 per year. Nor does it apply to "unearned" income such as interest on bonds. Thus, Social Security takes a huge bite out of a minimum-wage janitor's paycheck, while it costs next to nothing for a lawyer with a six-figure salary or a Donald Trump who makes his money by shuffling assets.

The FICA tax is unfair not only to workers, but to their employers as well. Every business must match the FICA contributions of the workers on their payrolls, whether or not it makes a profit. So when profits are down, the incentive is all the greater to lay off workers.

And entrepeneurs who own their own businesses are hit twice. They have to pay FICA taxes on the salary they pay themselves, and then match their own contribution.

Because so many people receive Social Security benefits, the FICA tax rate has soared in recent years. When the system began in 1937, the rate was one percent. Next year, it will be 7.65 percent.

We can expect the rate to increase further. Today, the ratio of people receiving benefits to workers paying for them is one to 3.3. By the time Social Security begins dipping into its imaginary trust fund in 2030, the ratio will be one to two. If benefits are not limited, the workers who foot the bill for our generation's retirees will suffer an unconscionable burden.

THE entire concept of our Social Security system is fundamentally flawed. What we need is a program to insure the elderly against financial need. If you're 65 or older and have financial need, the government sends you a check. Simple as that. This program should be paid for by increasing income taxes on the middle and upper classes and taxes on corporate profits.

For more than 50 years, Social Security has been the cornerstone of liberal efforts to fight poverty. And it has been effective. The rate of poverty among the elderly has fallen from about one in three to less than one in 20.

But we spend so much on rich senior citizens that we neglect far more pressing needs in society. Children, for instance, are six times as likely to be poor than the elderly. We should be giving poor children a fighting chance instead of subsidizing the Carribean cruises of greedy geezers.

We need an income maintenence policy that is more efficient, fair and compassionate. We need to scrap Social Security.