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?
Again, you are going to have to make up your mind whether you are discussing Social Security or something else.
I come up with the 40% number as the life expectancy is now much longer and the boomers are starting to retire.
In other words, you pulled a number out of your behind.
I suggest that you stop right now and go read the Social Security Trustee's Annual report:
They take the expected changes in life expectancy, productivity, wage growth, fertility etc. into account and come up with estimates about the actuarial status of Social Security.
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!
Again, you misunderstand. I recognized the need to reduce Social Security 30 years ago. I'm objecting to the method proposed by Graham, because it's wrong to impose that cost on a small group of people with insufficient political power to prevent it.
Would you support increasing the retirement age?
That would be the same as reducing benefits across the board. So, yes -- I would. Someone that wanted to start receiving benefits earlier could take the reduced benefit.