Well said Eagle. I agree with almost everything you posted and have proposed similar legislation for years...obviously to no avail...;-) I would add to your excellent post that SS benefits on the other end(distribution), should be means tested.
Why should my brother(I used this example before), who makes 100k/month in retirement(really), receive SS benefits? My conservative friends(I consider myself a recovering conservative) say I am wrong and that since he paid into the system, those benefits are rightfully his. That is true in the strictest sense of "rightfully".
They fail to appreciate that the purpose of SS was to support those who did not have sufficient "means" to support themselves at retirement. I look at the "Insurance" side of SS as just that..term life insurance.
Well, congrats to my brother. He didn't die and the "term" expired at retirement on the insurance policy and the "term" expired also on his SS contributions(premiums), because he does not need the "safety" net that his premiums paid toward.
I like this concept. It is easier, IMO, for my stricter conservative friends to swallow, rather than to say he "owes" his benefits to those less fortunate. Why does that idea carry such a bitter taste? Oh, well...So I pkg my discussions with my friends in light of this "insurance" analogy, as everyone(well...) understands the whole term life insurance idea.
Just saying...life is compromise...would you keep taking your car back for the same problem to get fixed , to the same mechanic, if it never got fixed? Let's fix what is broke(SS) and give and take. If not, can we start over with a new mechanic (Congress..both sides)?