Like, totally, OMG Stuka! (Sorry, I don’t do Valley Girl well enough….<sob>) Seriously it would be great if we could require the elderly to take the train, taxi, limo or bus instead of letting them drive!
As for Social Security (and like programs) i think they should be need based, not age based if you want my honest opinion. If you are 65 with five different kinds of cancer and a missing leg, sure, you can get Social Security! if you are 65, in great health, physically and mentally fit and employed full time, I don’t think you should qualify.
However, I could see just an elevated age requirement. I think we would need to look at the statistical ages people die now versus how they were in the 1940s when the program was established. If, and this is a hypothetical because I am using IF, men typically died at 45 years of age in 1941 and the age you were allowed to collect on Social Security was 56, then we should look at the actuarial tables to determine the odds of someone living to 56 when the life expectancy was 45. Then we should look at the tables for today and find the odds that are closest to those of the 1940s and that should be the age.
for instance. If you had a 3% chance to live to age 56 in 1941 and you have a 3% chance to live to 93 today, then you should not be able to collect on Social Security until you reach the age of 93.
That is purely a hypothetical example with every number pulled out of my little, “bubble-butt” to demonstrate my point. Those numbers are not to be held as cast in stone, nor are they researched. I just grabbed numbers that seemed somewhat realistic in my mind.</sob>