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.
Silly me, I keep forgetting there is a trust fund - lmao!
How about this site: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com
This has taxes(revenue) and spending. If you believe in the existence of a social security trust fund I will need to leave it at that.