Peter J. Ferrara does a masterful job of insulting the readers' intelligence.
He starts by citing irrelevant and unrelated numbers. He cites the maximum FICA tax in 1933 and 1983 without allowing for inflation, without allowing for the increase in taxable income during those five decades, and without hinting at the fact that the tax was deliberately low in those early years, since benefits were small and a full reserve was considered unnecessary.
With no corroborating data, he says he conducted a study predicting disaster when today's workers retire. But Ferrara's saying so doesn't make it so. Unsupported statements don't prove anything and don't convince intelligent people.
Ferrara also moans that many people get more out of the program than they paid in, but he should know this is the basis of any insurance program--sharing the risks. If Ferrara purchased an auto insurance policy and then had an accident, would he be likely to refuse to accept a payment that exceeded the premiums he had paid?
Add the fact that The Times supported Ferrara's article with a cartoon suggesting that Social Security is a burden on the young. Tsk, tsk; your bias is showing.