More Utahns than not favor Social Security reforms that include allowing limited private investment accounts, but critics say the public opinion numbers can be misleading.

In a Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll, almost half (47 percent) of 624 respondents said allowing the private investment accounts is definitely or probably a good idea.

That compares to 39 percent who said they reject that avenue of reform. Another 14 percent said they didn't know. The poll, conducted March 7-10, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

The survey comes amid estimates from the Social Security Administration that by 2018 more will be paid out for benefits than collected in taxes. By 2042, it is predicted the administration's trust funds will be empty. Under current law, benefit cuts would have to make up the difference.

The scenario has led President Bush and other key leaders, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to call for changes.

The changes proposed so far have in turn spurred adamant opposition by the American Association of Retired Persons, which rejects any type of Social Security restructuring that carves out benefits.

"If you look at people who are under 40 or under 50, there is some general support for the idea," said Utah's AARP chapter director Rob Ence.

But when the notion includes follow-up questions such as agreeing to a reduction in guaranteed benefits or paying for the transition costs, support starts to dwindle, Ence said.

"The more people learn about it the less they want it, even with the younger generation."

The local poll bears out Ence's assertion that the younger the respondent, the more likely the support for the general notion of making changes to Social Security by allowing private investment accounts: 57 percent of those polled in the 25 to 34 age group were in favor, while 56 percent in the age 65 and older category were opposed.

Jeff Thredgold, an economic consultant to Zions Bank, also rejects private investment accounts as a way to fix Social Security.

"While the president is trying to make a strong case toward younger people around the country, what he does not include in his discussion are the transition costs."

Thredgold said those costs are expected to be $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years and $3 trillion to $4 trillion in the 10 years after that.

Thredgold believes less drastic modifications could be made quickly to ease Social Security's pain such as raising the retirement age.

"I tell my kids that Social Security will be there, but don't expect it until age 68 or 69," he said. "The system is not broken . . . but we do need to do some tinkering around the edges."

---

E-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com