Thank you for pointing out the problem and the possible solutions; the American public could use someone like you in political office to help bring this to general public knowledge. I know I'd vote for you! One minor point to make: Social Security is already 'means tested', in fact twice...the first time is in the calculation of the benefit, which is (justifiably) tilted in favor of replacing lower income levels at a higher rate. The second time is at the point of taxation of benefits: upon the glorious day that one hits 62, or 65 (full benefits), or 70 (like someone we admire very much) and begins to receive the benefit, should you have meaningful additional income to report during a year in retirement, your SS benefits now become taxable. So, perhaps instead of saying that SS should be 'means tested', perhaps we should say it needs to be 'more means tested'.
Thank you for pointing out the problem and the possible solutions; the American public could use someone like you in political office to help bring this to general public knowledge. I know I'd vote for you! One minor point to make: Social Security is already 'means tested', in fact twice...the first time is in the calculation of the benefit, which is (justifiably) tilted in favor of replacing lower income levels at a higher rate. The second time is at the point of taxation of benefits: upon the glorious day that one hits 62, or 65 (full benefits), or 70 (like someone we admire very much) and begins to receive the benefit, should you have meaningful additional income to report during a year in retirement, your SS benefits now become taxable. So, perhaps instead of saying that SS should be 'means tested', perhaps we should say it needs to be 'more means tested'.
meant to say: 67 for full benefits.