BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not trying to steal anything from anyone.

You couldn't engage with actual discussion about the ethics of the situation, so, what - you're just going to ad hom your way through this? Good plan, really persuasive.

---

Lol, you haven't tried a serious discussion from the OP all the way to here. And your pitch has been all about stealing, although it's wrapped in guilt-shaming, condescension, and distortion of the facts. It's opened my eyes though to how desperate some of the younger generation is to skip out on their obligations to society -- paying into SS -- that many others before you have done faithfully for 90 years. I say "some" because fortunately there are still a lot of fine people in the younger generations who will do the right thing and work constructively to address the challenges of tomorrow.

---

Oh yeah, how convenient that it's our obligation to pay taxes for the benefits that your already-wealthy generation is receiving, in order to leave an empty husk when it's our turn to retire.

You're Exhibit A for why the Boomers are hated.

---

We've lived in a 3 bdrm, 2 bath house with a carport for 28 years and on a fixed income for the last 13. Where is all this wealth that I am supposed to have? I drive an 8 year old pickup. We and folks just like me are paying property taxes for your kids to get a K-12 education. We don't go out to eat, we don't take expensive vacations. We paid for our parents SS benefits, they paid for their parents. Again where is this mass wealth that all us Boomers have accumulated?

Apparently the worst thing some of us boomers did was raise a bunch of whiny little brats and some of them continued with theirs.

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm aligned with you on nearly everything but this. Property taxes are one of the best forms of taxes, because they encourage efficient use of finite resources by imposing a carrying cost on ownership. Prevents asset hoarding without productive use, which is good for society.

High property taxes signal to a homeowner maybe you don't really need or want to live in the large home in the neighborhood with the best schools, etc.

Cutting property taxes just squeezes people entering the home buying market right now even harder… for what benefit? To tilt the scales in favor of a gerontocracy even harder?

---

Gerontocracy? Dayum, Chat GPT was on the ball yesterday....

---

I said I wasn't going to post on this thread any more because of the total dumbassery. You see, SS is never going to end and women are not going to ever lose their right to vote.

But, that made me LOL.

Zobel said:

---

lol because I used a word you had to look up?

---

Much to your surprise, I'm sure, I knew what it meant Pard.....and it was Chat that used the word which you just copied. Nobody and I repeat nobody uses the terms civic duty and civic virtue and the idea of the existence of such and the number $44K for a lump sum SS payout as often as you have then tops it with the use of the word gerontocracy w/o getting it from somewhere other than their head. Chat or some other AI source is your go to in your SS scenario my friend.

Zobel said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm really not sure why framing this becomes a personal issue.

---

Because you and others make it that way. You use the "boomer" term like a cudgel because it gets a response. And you are quick to blame people who don't want to lose their SS as greedy or perhaps worse, unpatriotic.

ETA: You -- and the guy who wrote the original article -- use the term "Total boomer luxury communism" to try and win support for reform. I'm sure it works for young people, but are you open enough to realize how that might be framing this as a "personal issue?"

---

Dunno man, it seems to me if it riles you up then it's because it hits close to the mark. If it doesn't apply to you, why are you protesting so much? I don't get ruffled by people whining about lazy millennials.

"Boomer" is the name of your generation, and "total boomer luxury communism" is the name of the article. The author used that term because on a per capita basis we spend 3-6 times as much on entitlements as…China. Is it provocative? Yeah. It should be.

People who don't want to lose their SS aren't greedy or unpatriotic. People who are willing to cash their check without any concern for the future of the country are greedy and unpatriotic.

---

Good luck to you in your crusade.

I'm certain you'll win over plenty of hearts and minds with your approach.

The problem is NOT the people that spent their entire working lives contributing to the system and then eventually drawing from it.

The problem is the people drawing from it that never contributed, never will contribute or will only contribute a very small amount.

Most people don't ever receive back what they put in, but there are tens of millions of people who receive and didn't contribute.

Looks like I'm nobody then, pard. $44k is pretty easy math - a little over $2.5T in SS trust fund divided by around 58 million retirees. Don't need ai for that.

The next argument you make that isn't based on yourself or me / ad hom will be the first.

What's my approach exactly? Being willing to have frank and open discussions with people, even if they resort to insults and name calling off the cuff?

What's your suggestion? All ears - how do you convince someone they should be willing to reduce their own benefit payout without appealing to the good of the country?

Zobel said:

---

Looks like I'm nobody then, pard. $44k is pretty easy math - a little over $2.5T in SS trust fund divided by around 58 million retirees. Don't need ai for that.

The next argument you make that isn't based on yourself or me / ad hom will be the first.

---

Where'd you get the $2.5T and the 58 million?

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Zobel said:

---

What's my approach exactly? Being willing to have frank and open discussions with people, even if they resort to insults and name calling off the cuff?

What's your suggestion? All ears - how do you convince someone they should be willing to reduce their own benefit payout without appealing to the good of the country?

---

Perhaps it's your readily discernable passive/aggressive tendencies?

Again, no matter how many times you make this about me, it's not relevant. We've established I'm obstinate, selfish, hypocritical, snarky, plagiarizing, big-word-using, condescending, etc. Let the record show.

Let's talk about the facts please.

Zobel said:

---

Again, no matter how many times you make this about me, it's not relevant. We've established I'm obstinate, selfish, hypocritical, snarky, plagiarizing, big-word-using, condescending, etc. Let the record show.

Let's talk about the facts please.

---

When you come across as you describe yourself, you won't get a conversation on the facts.

Something these "old boomers" have learned in life... how you have the conversation is as important as the conversation itself.

We're trying to help you understand that, but you keep ignoring it.

Keep up your current approach if you want. But don't expect different results.

That's not how I describe myself. That's how you've described me.

Our first interaction in this thread was me saying that I was hoping for people like you to voluntarily sacrifice for the good of the country because it was the right thing to do, and you replied with pure sarcasm "In fact, I need you to take real good care of yourself and keep working so that you can pay for my benefits. Thanks in advance."

So the reality here is the discussion itself is upsetting, and to avoid the difficult discussion you just retreat to snark and personal attacks. And then you say I've never been serious, etc. it's ok. You don't have to engage with me, but I'm willing to have a frank discussion about this with anyone, even if they insult me.

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

lol because I used a word you had to look up?

---

Much to your surprise, I'm sure, I knew what it meant Pard.....and it was Chat that used the word which you just copied. Nobody and I repeat nobody uses the terms civic duty and civic virtue and the idea of the existence of such and the number $44K for a lump sum SS payout as often as you have then tops it with the use of the word gerontocracy w/o getting it from somewhere other than their head. Chat or some other AI source is your go to in your SS scenario my friend.

---

Dude - before you go accusing people of plagiarism, you may want to observe Zobel's other posts. Not a good look for you.

McNasty said:

---

Zobel said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Don't have to take it from the young. Can do a phase out. This isn't theoretical quantum math. We have all the inputs and outputs with a good estimate on a defined end date.

Totally solvable. There might be a little bit of a haircut some take somewhere in the transition, but it's the easiest way to retire SS and can be done.

---

You've said this a couple of times but I genuinely don't understand what you're proposing - if I do understand it, then I don't think it works.

With the amount coming in, we have a shortfall of around 23% starting around 2033. From the on every single dollar that goes out is being sourced from current taxes, there's no buffer or accumulated money left. So any cuts you make on the input side make this worse, not better. You *have* to take from current workers to pay it.

How do you see this? Where are we misaligned?

---

I too would be curious to see the math behind a painless phase out with a "little haircut". Absent some external changes (e.g. economic boom from AI), I don't see any way to avoid hyperinflation and rising tax rates.

---

I never said it was painless. Calling out there would be a haircut is specifically not painless.

The basis plan would be:

• People X years old: get full benefits
• People Y-Z: get partial benefits
• People < Z: get no benefits at all

You would then have different payroll tax rates based on age cohorts that ratchet downwards over time to cover the remaining obligation due to the boomers. The balance from the tax cut for younger people would be returned as take-home pay or required to be put in a dedicated private retirement account. And this money balance would perform better over time than if it was sitting in SS so they should actually come out ahead.

We have a finite end that we can estimate for the oldest cohort. It won't be perfect, but you can definitely figure out the math here. It won't be 100% clean but it can be done. And it would take several decades. The problem is everyone is too scared to even suggest something different.

If you had to, you could implement some kind of temporary additional funding mechanism to cover any balance shortfalls that would automatically cease to exist once the oldest cohort dies off. I'm sure there are creative levers to pull here that someone could come up with. You likely have to do some kind of progressive funding mechanism like we do with everything else that is anchored to the age cohorts above. Not a fan of that, but you can wind this down over time and end the whole thing, if you have the political will.

A phase out is the only way to do this while not completely f'ing over everyone who has already paid in, but there will be some pain.

ag94whoop said:

---

The problem is NOT the people that spent their entire working lives contributing to the system and then eventually drawing from it.

The problem is the people drawing from it that never contributed, never will contribute or will only contribute a very small amount.

Most people don't ever receive back what they put in, but there are tens of millions of people who receive and didn't contribute.

---

When you say "the system" I am assuming you are referring to all state and government programs such as Medicaid, SNAP etc. as well as SS and Medicare as I do not think one can draw from the latter without specific eligibilities be met.

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

lol because I used a word you had to look up?

---

Much to your surprise, I'm sure, I knew what it meant Pard.....and it was Chat that used the word which you just copied. Nobody and I repeat nobody uses the terms civic duty and civic virtue and the idea of the existence of such and the number $44K for a lump sum SS payout as often as you have then tops it with the use of the word gerontocracy w/o getting it from somewhere other than their head. Chat or some other AI source is your go to in your SS scenario my friend.

---

Dude - before you go accusing people of plagiarism, you may want to observe Zobel's other posts. Not a good look for you.

---

While he apparently is correct on the $44 million number as he posted links to where he obtained it, the rest has been his opinion presented as fact. He has his opinion, you have yours and I have mine....and you know what they say about opinions.....

Zobel said:

---

Our first interaction in this thread was me saying that I was hoping for people like you to voluntarily sacrifice for the good of the country because it was the right thing to do, and you replied with pure sarcasm "In fact, I need you to take real good care of yourself and keep working so that you can pay for my benefits. Thanks in advance."

So the reality here is the discussion itself is upsetting, and to avoid the difficult discussion you just retreat to snark and personal attacks. And then you say I've never been serious, etc. it's ok. You don't have to engage with me, but I'm willing to have a frank discussion about this with anyone, even if they insult me.

---

Again, you continue misrepresenting the facts.

That was my third response on page two and only after you suggested I was immoral for wanting to claim my imminent retirement benefit. So you make a value judgment against me... I finally respond with humor... and I'm the one getting personal?

You're wearing one heck of a tin foil hat my friend.

Your approach isn't working. Not because of the topic, but because of the condescension and holier-than-thou claim that others are not as virtuous as you. Spare me.

Zobel said:

---

That's not how I describe myself. That's how you've described me.

Our first interaction in this thread was me saying that I was hoping for people like you to voluntarily sacrifice for the good of the country because it was the right thing to do, and you replied with pure sarcasm "In fact, I need you to take real good care of yourself and keep working so that you can pay for my benefits. Thanks in advance."

So the reality here is the discussion itself is upsetting, and to avoid the difficult discussion you just retreat to snark and personal attacks. And then you say I've never been serious, etc. it's ok. You don't have to engage with me, but I'm willing to have a frank discussion about this with anyone, even if they insult me.

---

Like Seinfeld, this long-running popular online "dialog" is really a "thread about nothing." Not that there is anything wrong with that---it is an important topic--but it is less resolvable by grand notions of civic virtue and boastful life experiences than by generational electoral demographics, the voting outcomes of which I shudder to think will look like.

Rattler12 said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

lol because I used a word you had to look up?

---

Much to your surprise, I'm sure, I knew what it meant Pard.....and it was Chat that used the word which you just copied. Nobody and I repeat nobody uses the terms civic duty and civic virtue and the idea of the existence of such and the number $44K for a lump sum SS payout as often as you have then tops it with the use of the word gerontocracy w/o getting it from somewhere other than their head. Chat or some other AI source is your go to in your SS scenario my friend.

---

Dude - before you go accusing people of plagiarism, you may want to observe Zobel's other posts. Not a good look for you.

---

While he apparently is correct on the $44 million number as he posted links to where he obtained it, the rest has been his opinion presented as fact. He has his opinion, you have yours and I have mine....and you know what they say about opinions.....

---

Every AI chat provides links to the sources it used. It does the analysis and provides the sources. Also, looking at Google, that term has about 150 references over the last 20 years out of a domain of about 2 billion - with a b - websites. It is simply not part of anyone's lexicon, so yeah, most likely AI.

Rattler12 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I still think that part of the solution is to tax the crap out of the Boomers on their way out the door, since they were such a significant contributor to the problem, and the Gen Zers and Gen Xers haven't done anything to earn that "wealth" that the Boomers created anyways. They helped create this massive tax bill. They should help pay for it, the spoiled, self-interested brats.

---

How does it feel being probably the most intelligent person on the planet ? Can we use that same methodology on the Gen Zers and Gen Xers and Gen millennials and tax the crap out of them and all they built when they pass? What a mighty Republic we will be then.......just what the founding fathers had in mind.

---

If Gen X increase our national debt by 7x to around $275 trillion like the boomer have done, there will not be a surviving government to be around to levy taxes.

Rattler12 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

5Amp said:

---

I think most on here agree that retired people over 70 yrs old shouldn't pay property or school tax, they have already paid our a fair share over decades and no longer have kids in school.

---

I completely agree with this.

Those taxes should accrue, interest free, on the property until it is transferred to those that inherit it.

At least I'm consistent.

---

And we should tax the people that actually have children attending our public school system double what they are paying now during the gap. And those that are rich enough to send their kids to private schools and avoid public schools altogether should have to pay an additional "penalty tax" over and above for making the conscientious civic virtue less decision to not have their children attend said public schools.

---

The gap will be small. People over 70 tend to die, and then the tax bill that was deferred comes due.

Martin Cash said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

5Amp said:

---

I think most on here agree that retired people over 70 yrs old shouldn't pay property or school tax, they have already paid our a fair share over decades and no longer have kids in school.

---

I completely agree with this.

Those taxes should accrue, interest free, on the property until it is transferred to those that inherit it.

At least I'm consistent.

---

Other than the interest free part, do you realize we already have that in Texas at 65?

---

I do. That was the joke.

Rattler12 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not trying to steal anything from anyone.

You couldn't engage with actual discussion about the ethics of the situation, so, what - you're just going to ad hom your way through this? Good plan, really persuasive.

---

Lol, you haven't tried a serious discussion from the OP all the way to here. And your pitch has been all about stealing, although it's wrapped in guilt-shaming, condescension, and distortion of the facts. It's opened my eyes though to how desperate some of the younger generation is to skip out on their obligations to society -- paying into SS -- that many others before you have done faithfully for 90 years. I say "some" because fortunately there are still a lot of fine people in the younger generations who will do the right thing and work constructively to address the challenges of tomorrow.

---

Oh yeah, how convenient that it's our obligation to pay taxes for the benefits that your already-wealthy generation is receiving, in order to leave an empty husk when it's our turn to retire.

You're Exhibit A for why the Boomers are hated.

---

We've lived in a 3 bdrm, 2 bath house with a carport for 28 years and on a fixed income for the last 13. Where is all this wealth that I am supposed to have? I drive an 8 year old pickup. We and folks just like me are paying property taxes for your kids to get a K-12 education. We don't go out to eat, we don't take expensive vacations. We paid for our parents SS benefits, they paid for their parents. Again where is this mass wealth that all us Boomers have accumulated?

Apparently the worst thing some of us boomers did was raise a bunch of whiny little brats and some of them continued with theirs.

---

No.

This is the worst thing you guys collectively did:

The whole forum is a dialogue about nothing. But the OP article has thousands of views and interactions on X - plus this thread. We've actually communicated here positively in a lot of ways. People have talked about the amount of money in the trust fund, the year when it runs out, what happens when it does, and even had some laughs.

To be honest it's actually a testament to the general intelligence and eloquence of this forum and Aggies in general.

I think it's been a smashing success.

I didn't say you were immoral, I said you should be willing to forgo for a moral reason, over and against the reasoning you presented which was, paraphrasing, because it's legal.

In other words, the answer to "it's my legal right" was "yes, but there is a moral consideration" - not "you're immoral if you don't". It's a moral dilemma, and I think the moral dilemma is worth discussing (as I actually was with another poster).

It seems like most of this is genuine misunderstanding, and I'm fine with saying that it's an honest misunderstanding.

I love the idea of a phase out but your post about a temporary funding mechanism is a necessity, unless there is a benefit cut. You can't get out of the short term mismatch between tax revenue and spending by cutting future benefits, and certainly not by cutting current revenues.

I love classics / ancient history and read them quite a bit. Sparta is the classic example of a gerontocracy. A part of their government was called the gerousia, which means literally the body of the elders or the old. I come by the term honestly, sir, although applying it (negatively) to the US isn't my idea. It's frequently thrown around on social media.

Zobel said:

---

I didn't say you were immoral, I said you should be willing to forgo for a moral reason, over and against the reasoning you presented which was, paraphrasing, because it's legal.

In other words, the answer to "it's my legal right" was "yes, but there is a moral consideration" - not "you're immoral if you don't". It's a moral dilemma, and I think the moral dilemma is worth discussing (as I actually was with another poster).

It seems like most of this is genuine misunderstanding, and I'm fine with saying that it's an honest misunderstanding.

---

I'm willing to move on. I do see some redeeming qualities in your youthful impetuousness, lol. Carefully nurtured and refined under the watchful eye of seasoned veterans, it can keep things moving forward when the old farts would just as soon sit on the porch and watch traffic go by.

Zobel said:

---

I love the idea of a phase out but your post about a temporary funding mechanism is a necessity, unless there is a benefit cut. You can't get out of the short term mismatch between tax revenue and spending by cutting future benefits, and certainly not by cutting current revenues.

---

Likely, but I'm just presenting a way to get out of it when most think there isn't one. What I've proposed is the cleanest and fairest of the myriad dirty ways to get out because it's a phase out with a sunset.

Zobel said:

---

I love the idea of a phase out but your post about a temporary funding mechanism is a necessity

---

I think you're getting warmer. I'll fight tooth-and-nail to keep the benefit I'm on the verge of claiming and that I've paid into for 45 years, but I could also gradually warm up to a temporary and flat percentage assessment that is paid by everyone with an income across all generations.

Key words are temporary and flat percentage... no progressive BS. If everybody's gotta help fix it, then everybody pays the same percentage of income in a temporary assessment that expires when the program is stabilized.

I realize you could skip the assessment and cut benefits to arrive at the same place, but for some hard-wired reason that goes against every grain in my body. I suppose it's due to the view that a "deal is a deal"... you don't renege on a commitment (benefits). However, you could supplement it with a new deal that involves an assessment. No one ever said there wouldn't be a new deal.

But you would never, ever, get the Democrats to agree to that. They want to expand SS, not stabilize it or wind it down.

YouBet said:

---

McNasty said:

---

Zobel said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Don't have to take it from the young. Can do a phase out. This isn't theoretical quantum math. We have all the inputs and outputs with a good estimate on a defined end date.

Totally solvable. There might be a little bit of a haircut some take somewhere in the transition, but it's the easiest way to retire SS and can be done.

---

You've said this a couple of times but I genuinely don't understand what you're proposing - if I do understand it, then I don't think it works.

With the amount coming in, we have a shortfall of around 23% starting around 2033. From the on every single dollar that goes out is being sourced from current taxes, there's no buffer or accumulated money left. So any cuts you make on the input side make this worse, not better. You *have* to take from current workers to pay it.

How do you see this? Where are we misaligned?

---

I too would be curious to see the math behind a painless phase out with a "little haircut". Absent some external changes (e.g. economic boom from AI), I don't see any way to avoid hyperinflation and rising tax rates.

---

I never said it was painless. Calling out there would be a haircut is specifically not painless.

The basis plan would be:

• People X years old: get full benefits
• People Y-Z: get partial benefits
• People < Z: get no benefits at all

You would then have different payroll tax rates based on age cohorts that ratchet downwards over time to cover the remaining obligation due to the boomers. The balance from the tax cut for younger people would be returned as take-home pay or required to be put in a dedicated private retirement account. And this money balance would perform better over time than if it was sitting in SS so they should actually come out ahead.

We have a finite end that we can estimate for the oldest cohort. It won't be perfect, but you can definitely figure out the math here. It won't be 100% clean but it can be done. And it would take several decades. The problem is everyone is too scared to even suggest something different.

If you had to, you could implement some kind of temporary additional funding mechanism to cover any balance shortfalls that would automatically cease to exist once the oldest cohort dies off. I'm sure there are creative levers to pull here that someone could come up with. You likely have to do some kind of progressive funding mechanism like we do with everything else that is anchored to the age cohorts above. Not a fan of that, but you can wind this down over time and end the whole thing, if you have the political will.

A phase out is the only way to do this while not completely f'ing over everyone who has already paid in, but there will be some pain.

---

Thanks for taking the time to explain. If I understand you correctly, the reduction in benefits and taxes for younger generations would need to be paid for with other added or increased taxes, which makes sense with our debt and deficit. What are those taxes, and would a significant amount be paid by the same young workers? If not, then by whom?

McNasty said:

---

YouBet said:

---

McNasty said:

---

Zobel said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Don't have to take it from the young. Can do a phase out. This isn't theoretical quantum math. We have all the inputs and outputs with a good estimate on a defined end date.

Totally solvable. There might be a little bit of a haircut some take somewhere in the transition, but it's the easiest way to retire SS and can be done.

---

You've said this a couple of times but I genuinely don't understand what you're proposing - if I do understand it, then I don't think it works.

With the amount coming in, we have a shortfall of around 23% starting around 2033. From the on every single dollar that goes out is being sourced from current taxes, there's no buffer or accumulated money left. So any cuts you make on the input side make this worse, not better. You *have* to take from current workers to pay it.

How do you see this? Where are we misaligned?

---

I too would be curious to see the math behind a painless phase out with a "little haircut". Absent some external changes (e.g. economic boom from AI), I don't see any way to avoid hyperinflation and rising tax rates.

---

I never said it was painless. Calling out there would be a haircut is specifically not painless.

The basis plan would be:

• People X years old: get full benefits
• People Y-Z: get partial benefits
• People < Z: get no benefits at all

You would then have different payroll tax rates based on age cohorts that ratchet downwards over time to cover the remaining obligation due to the boomers. The balance from the tax cut for younger people would be returned as take-home pay or required to be put in a dedicated private retirement account. And this money balance would perform better over time than if it was sitting in SS so they should actually come out ahead.

We have a finite end that we can estimate for the oldest cohort. It won't be perfect, but you can definitely figure out the math here. It won't be 100% clean but it can be done. And it would take several decades. The problem is everyone is too scared to even suggest something different.

If you had to, you could implement some kind of temporary additional funding mechanism to cover any balance shortfalls that would automatically cease to exist once the oldest cohort dies off. I'm sure there are creative levers to pull here that someone could come up with. You likely have to do some kind of progressive funding mechanism like we do with everything else that is anchored to the age cohorts above. Not a fan of that, but you can wind this down over time and end the whole thing, if you have the political will.

A phase out is the only way to do this while not completely f'ing over everyone who has already paid in, but there will be some pain.

---

Thanks for taking the time to explain. If I understand you correctly, the reduction in benefits and taxes for younger generations would need to be paid for with other added or increased taxes, which makes sense with our debt and deficit. What are those taxes, and would a significant amount be paid by the same young workers? If not, then by whom?

---

I haven't gotten that far but I can tell you my deeply unpopular idea that would never happen.....

I would make the 50% of the population that currently enjoys a free ride by paying nothing in federal income tax (and in many cases actually gets paid by the government) pay an additional point or two on their SS tax amount to help fund it.

Raising taxes further on the youth makes it worse. So they pay what the previous generation paid and then some, but get the same or less?

Zobel said:

---

Raising taxes further on the youth makes it worse. So they pay what the previous generation paid and then some, but get the same or less?

---

How would that be different from me paying everything I've paid -- and then expecting no further taxes once I start drawing a benefit -- only to have to pay a temporary tax until it's fixed?

You probably want that temp tax to be small, which means spreading over many years. Or, make it bigger and get it over with quicker.

All I'm saying is if you want to fix it, it's gotta be a team effort. You can't disproportionately put it on one group or the other.

X% of income. Pick a number. Two percent? Three percent? Older people would pay more because they make more than younger people, but I could live with a flat percentage. Just no progressive BS like they do with income tax. That would be a deal killer.