Do you mean overall government spending, or Social Security?
2) If you support a 25% reduction in Soc Security spending, how do you implement the individual reduction of 40% required to make this happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your math. Why does a 25% reduction in Social Security require an "individual reduction of 40%"? Do you mean 40% reduction in individual benefits?
But, to answer your question: pick any percentage rate. Reduce Social Security benefits across the board, no exceptions. I'll support it.
Politically, it would be better to do it gradually, so that people can plan for it. Reduction of current benefits could be implemented by shrinking the annual COLA.
Yes!
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your math. Why does a 25% reduction in Social Security require an "individual reduction of 40%"? Do you mean 40% reduction in individual benefits?I come up with the 40% number as the life expectancy is now much longer and the boomers are starting to retire. Therefore there will be a lot more people in the system but actual spending needs to be reduced. Therefore individual benefits must be reduced by much more than 25% in order to get the 25% reduction in expense. Granted, I guessed at the 40% number but the number is much larger than 25%.
Based on your response, I think you understand the need to cut which is much better than 90% of the posters here on this thread!
So if we take the average life expectancy(78.5)and subtract the retirement age (62) giving us 16.5, multiply by 60%(to give us 40% spending reduction) and add back to 62, we get a new retirement age of 72.4.
So the problem of social security cuts could be done by drastically increasing the retirement age. As this is not feasible, every year lower would require a decrease in benefits paid.
I would prefer this to be means tested but across the board would cuts would be much preferable to doing nothing.
Would you support increasing the retirement age?