>>>>>The one specific thing I agree with the Paul Ryans of the world about is entitlement programs like social security and Medicare. We should not be giving money to those who do not need it. But oh boy, don't suggest that. Any politician who seriously suggests that will be hanging in the public square in about an hour.
>>>>
>>>>The problem with means testing Social Security and Medicare is that you undercut the consensus for them. When they're only for "the poor," you'd get the same kind of moaning about "parasites" that you now hear for welfare and food stamps. When they're universal, that doesn't happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There are occasions when we disagree and this is one of them. I don't have to look any further for an example than my father. He doesn't need the money but takes it gladly. He was born in 1932, grew up poor in a small town in rural Maine during the Depression, and will NEVER feel secure enough. That was no easy place.
>>
>>But if SS was means-tested and your father therefore didn't get it, how would he be feeling about the 50 or 60 years he paid into the fund? The reason SS is the third rail of politics is that everyone feels invested (and, I guess, literally is.)
>>
>>Tamar
>
>I agree. You can't take away something you've already contracted to provide and you've already been paid for.
>
>The long term answer is to have the US government show some stones and say anyone born after a certain date (a date greater than perhaps 16 years ago) will NOT participate in the Social Security system. Let the system fizzle out as the last of the participants fizzle out.

Not surprisingly, I disagree with you. I think the solution is to remove or raise the cap on how much income is taxed for Social Security. I think raising the cap and indexing it so it moves with inflation would solve the problems here.

I also think we need to do an education campaign to remind people that Social Security was never meant to be the bulk of their retirement income, just enough to ensure that they don't starve.

Tamar