kyzr
Diamond Member
There are several relatively painless ways the program can be modified for indefinite solvency.
1) Increase the eligibility age to occur in proportion with actuarial life expectancy when the program was conceived.
2) Eliminate the contribution cap.
3) Impose a means test. In my own example, if my monthly benefit were reduced by up to $200 I really wouldn't feel it. And there are many for whom the monthly benefit would be redundantly trivial and wholly unnecessary.*
(*Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment. Qualification for payment could be determined by level of existing personal assets without negatively affecting anyone.)
And FDR would be so proud of the way that you've just dismembered and roasted his dream of UNIVERSAL coverage for ALL workers...
(*Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment. Qualification for payment could be determined by Total Income without negatively affecting anyone.)
Using "personal assets" makes it a wealth tax. I prefer using the IRS to determine what SS benefits are taxable and what are not taxable. For example, incomes over $250k don't need SS benefits. OTOH taking money off them is socialism, so I prefer 1 & 2 and to use 3 only if required.
Last edited: