If I’m well-protected from age discrimination you can raise the retirement age on me. Frankly 65 sounds awfully young. But I suspect it would be a tough sell to lots of other folks.
That’s one reason yes.
Of course not.
Well, it depends on the details of that estimate. The study I linked to used 1.3%, 1.6%, and 1.9% to generate their numbers. They also mentioned something about “taxable GDP”. That is thier GDP numbers may not be exactly 1 to 1 equivilant to the GDP numbers in other studies. I can agree that certain predictions about the exact year of insolvency are flexibl depending on the assumptions. But showing that one assumption is erroneous does not invalidate the whole premise. The story may be true even if these particular documents are forgeries, after all. 
Of course. I said as much in that other thread. I allowed several times that some people are overblowing the dangers. But, I think, you are underplaying them. It does not follow that since we have always have more workers than retirees in the 20th century that we will always be so blessed in the 21st.
Well, if the unfortunate trade-off for letting you and your peers retire at 67 is racking up a truly gigantic deficit, then it’s a decision to be carefully considered.
Think about it: if every elederly person smoked at least 5 packs of cigarettes a day, the government would solve the mess! More tax revenue, and early death means lower SS payouts!
Pass it on…its SEXY for oldsters to smoke! 