Exactly, Tax-chick. Retirement, as such, didn't exist until very recent times. People worked until they dropped or until physically unable, at which point they were provided for in their last few months or years by one or more of their several children. In fact, the Social Security age was set at 65 at a time when most people died by their early 60's. The understanding was that the vast majority who paid into the system would not live long enough to collect.
We need to switch to private accounts, or at the very least index the Social Security age to life expectancy. There's no reason why somebody with 20-30 good working years left in them should retire at 62 on the taxpayer's dime.
You wrote: "There's no reason why somebody with 20-30 good working years left in them should retire at 62 on the taxpayer's dime."
Please say you're kidding?
Either of those would be a start.
However, I think the whole concept of government as an income provider is flawed, whether it's for the elderly or the (otherwise) low-income. Before government "insurance," people expected to either provide for themselves, be supported by their relatives, or be supported by private charity. I think that was a better way.