The most effective way is likely not broad-based cuts but targeted cuts to old-age spending via means-testing to induce liquidation of 401(k)s or other savings or tangible property to pay for their own care. I feel the longer (and slower) this trainwreck proceeds, the more likely this outcome is palatable. Roughly 52% of retirees have 250k or more in savings [1]. It is far preferable to drawdown those prior to either cutting benefits or raising taxes.

[1] https://www.aarp.org/money/retirement/peak-boomer-readiness/

▲

NewJazz 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Fyi asset testing and means testing are different, but yes that is absolutely a good way to implement things from a utilitarian perspective. From a political perspective... Old folks vote. It is a tough situation.

	▲	mgh95 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Assets are for practical purposes means and when relatively comfortable retirees draw on SS/401(k)s it is income. There are broadly two choices for the wealthy retirees: 1. cut back on SS and other benefits you can afford out of pocket 2. tax your income higher I would wager they would choose 1. To this group, the taxes hurt worse than the benefit losses For poor retirees: 1. cut benefits 2. don't cut benefits I would wager they would choose 1 The other two commonly suggested fixes -- tax the wealthy and broad tax increases -- also fail in my opinion. The holes we are talking about are in the hundreds of billions per year and won't be fixed by taxing just the wealthy. A broad middle class tax increase will also likely be rejected as unpopular. It really is my belief that a slow-motion failure here is best. If any fix occurs as the social security trust fund is at 0 cash and while the bond market is in revolt, there will be no fiscal room to maneuver to raise cash from the debt which forces rationing.