I’m opposed to it though, unless reducing benefits for comfortable retirees is part of the bargain. What will people do if we turn Social Security into a true social insurance program which *only* serves the function of *preventing poverty among the elderly*? Young people will face consequences for imprudent spending and will save more for retirement. And the cost of the program will be cut in *half*, by the way.

I agree with you to the extent that the proposal I put forward is silly. My point, however inarticulate, was that Social Security is poised for a major revision in the very near future and that ensuring a workable, humane and fiscally responsible outcome will require more than a meager defense of the status quo. That meek defense is all I’ve seen thus far.

In my mind, which is a fairly small place, preventing poverty amongst the elderly, generational inequality and all, is a worthy and noble goal.

Cutting benefits in order to prevent imprudent spending and encourage rational savings by the young strikes me as a particularly cruel experiment and a drastic step backwards. It fails (I hope) to take into account those who spend their lives working brutal shit jobs, often several of them at a time, for limited compensation in order to make ends meet. Should they be forced to live in the shit part of town, on meager sustenance, because their Social Security benefit doesn’t cover the basic cost of living and they were unable, due to their shit salary, to save for old age? Should they be forced to work their shit job until the day they die?

Granted, that’s a simplification, but in my part of the world, it’s really not much of one.