I've been riding some other boards discussing Social Security problems.

I personally believe that if you accept that the government should have some role in this, then the function of Social Security should be to provide a safety net for the elderly who hit on hard times. Period. (survivor and other emergency benefits could also fall under this "safety net" category.

To do this, I think means-testing should be part of the program, phased in for younger workers, and with a graduated cutoff line reducing benefits as income goes up.

Levying income tax on benefits does not accomplish the same thing. My idea saves the Social Security fund (on paper, but still a fund) money. Taxing the benefits just pulls the money away for SS and drops it into the general fund.

The best way to sell this is to treat Social Security as though it actually IS insurance, and not just using the word "insurance" as a political cover-up. There's no such thing as a real insurance program where EVERYBODY who pays premiums gets paid off.

With fire insurance, car insurance, and (at least in the old days) health insurance, it was assumed as a matter of course that most of the people who paid premiums would not get their money back. Nobody is bothered by this, it's part of the insurance business. Why can't people get used to the same idea with government retirement insurance?

Means testing could save a lot of money, depending on where the lines are drawn. Imagine if you could reduce costs to the point where the regressive payroll tax rate could actually be reduced. That would do a lot of people some good right now.