It's obvious we need to do something to fix this problem. The longer we wait, the more draconian the solution will be. It's time to put a long term plan in place to transition to a privitized system. The reality is we probably need to accomplish that over a time horizon that provides some protection for those in and near retirement. Not necessarily protect all their benefit, but perhaps a sliding scale based on how close they are to retirement. Whether we ever will see enough politicians with the fortitude to take this on is questionable.

One disagreement I have with the article is that Social Security is in fact already a means tested benefit by virture of the fact that if you earn enough it becomes taxable.

Dave

For most of my life I paid SS tax on 100% of my income because I didn't make that much.

Now, I would like to know WHY hollywood elites and sports stars making millions for one movie/song/game or per year only have to pay SS tax on the first $110,000 or whatever it is today?

People whine about paying, then they whine about those who draw and all the never-repaid government "loans" but I don't think I've ever heard a politician push for SS tax on 100% of income for anybody who pockets more than $110,000. My whole life, I never even made half of that per year. So now I'm on the receiving end, and all I hear "you get more than you paid" and "you will receive everything you paid in during the first three years of receiving."

And when all the rich and shameless retire they'll draw maximum SS and STILL have their millions to buy the best medical care when medicare doesn't do enough for them.

We all aren't blessed with sports ability or movie star faces and voices. Some of us are blessed with other talents that make us just as expert in fields that don't pay as well, and there is more demand for them than for the $million movie star or BBall player.

Id like to see some factual basis for the statement in the article that Social Security "takes money from relatively poor workers and gives it to relatively affluent retirees." Certainly anyone could come up with examples from their own knowledge, but the implication is that the average retiree's income is higher than that of the average worker (after Social Security deductions). Is this true? I would like to see some documented data to back this up. If I am wrong, I would stand corrected.

That said, I have no problem with Sen Simpson's statement--it is completely true. Something does need to be done to wean people off the "tit," though. An obvious start would be to establish a means test and/or raise the retirement age to a comparable level today to that of age 65 in 1935. These could be phased in over a reasonable period of time, but I'm not confident that something like this can be achieved. The two major political parties overwhelmingly in this era are interested in only one of two things: if out of power they want to be in power; if in power they want to remain in power. Ultimately, anything else is way down the priority list. What this means in the present day is that it's a safe bet nothing will be done to change the Social Security system in any meaningful way because doing so would be very unpopular. Should the party in power in the sitting Congress actually find the courage to change it, they would immediately be vilified by the other party seeking to unseat them in the next election (hiding, of course, their true agenda--to take power for themselves from those who had it).

Because anything finally done to address the problem will come too late (if it's not already too late), all of today's unsustainable entitlement programs will eventually go the way of the housing market--they will collapse from their own weight, leaving anyone receiving benefits, or about to, when that happens with a monthly check of zero dollars. The difference? No bailout, because there will be no money to be found to save them.

I have less than 10 years to go to age 65. I have some real estate paid for that provides rental income. Not much, but enough to keep me and wife from starving as long as I can continue working at a semi-skilled job a few hours a week. She got laid off as a direct result of Obama's economic policies. At 53 she is having a hard time finding a job that pays even $12 hr., despite having a B.S. in biology. I do not expect to receive SS because it will probably not be there in 8 years. Yes, it is the third rail of politics, and who will have the gumption to stop or severely amend this Ponzi scheme perpetrated upon Americans by FDR? And yes, I have paid into SS since I was 16 years old. I would simply like to have all that back in a lump sum so I can invest it as I want to, not as Congress deems prudent. Maybe there are others out there who would agree that this simply cannot continue without bringing the country to its knees financially. SS is the largest government expense.