For 30 years the policy has been to create more and more ways for the rich to 'opt out' of the tax system, and to make up for the lost revenue by borrowing from the rich instead of taxing them.

Jeb Bush earlier this year said that his father and Ronald Reagan wouldn't have a place in today's GOP.

This isn't about making the rich pay more. Going back to the 70's with top rates of 70% is NOT good for the economy. But the fact is that today the tax code is only progressive to about $10 million in income, and then it becomes regressive.

The amount of ways to avoid taxes via trusts and lower taxed partnerships and capita gains robs the system of needed revenue.

We need to go back to Reagan's Tax Reform of 1986 and tax all income, ordinary and otherwise, at the top rate of 28%. We also need to get rid tax avoidance schemes like trusts.

And if we want to fix the SS and MediCare deficits, we could simply tax ALL income for these as well. (I would couple these expanded taxes to tax cuts in the ordinary rates. IE if SS and Medicare taxes are approximately 8.5% at the individual level, I would cut the top tax rate (soon to be just over 39%), by the corresponding 8.5% Once the deficit is gone and the debt starts to fall, we can then look at lowering the rates for all further).

Allow younger people to buy Medicare if they pay premiums like for any other health insurance. This adds a healthier population that costs less to serve to Medicare users while increasing its income. This is also a move toward single-payer but is not single-payer.

We're still not looking squarely at the issue. The question is how can anyone keep up, when the whole "rat race" is about doing ever more and changing what we do ever faster, with ever less real understanding of what it will lead to.

That pattern of our lives comes from the natural behavior of the economy, which like any other kind of system managed to grow by steady %'s, the parts then need to manage ever bigger and more rapidly changing tasks.

That's a quite irreversible escalator of challenges, and inherent in "succeeding" at our growth strategy. It's also a big part of the traceable causes for things going so out of control.

People can't keep up, because the challenges keep growing faster than our innate capabilities to adapt to change.

I think I just heard Brian say that both Medicare and Medicaid are financed by the payroll tax. As I understand it, Medicaid is not financed by the payroll tax but by general revenue. Much of the Medicaid budget goes to paying for the needs of the elderly but this is not coming out of payroll tax revenue.

Why is no one talking about raising the cap on the amount of salary on which SS tak is taken out. When I started working many years ago, around end of November I got an increase in my check when SS no longer came out. Years later it still ran out about the same time, even though I was making about more than ten times as much. Just keep raising the cap as usual!!

From someone who already gets Social Security, remove the cap on the payroll tax for Social Security.

Social security: eliminate the individual FICA cap, which is now set at $110K per year.

Medicare: different problem. A solution: increased FICA for those who can afford it; now we all pay 1.5%.

Per working until you're 70. Great idea, if you can get a job. I've been told that, with an ivy league law degree and 20 years legal experience, if I lost my job I would be "unemployable" due to my age; I'm 62, in perfect health and run four miles a day - but no sale.

I hope I'm dead before this generation comes into power. They are dumb as paste and devoid of any critical thinking skills. There is no problem with social security. How many times does this have to be said? It's pointless, though. Americans in general are just clueless about how they are being brainwashed and then robbed blind.

Shame on you for conflating Social Security and Medicare. Respected specialists repeatedly say that Social Security is not part of the deficit.It is not. And, from what I've learned, still has a surplus Also, raising the retirement age falls markedly on low income people who usually have to work longer, and have higher mortality rates. Yes, raise the income cap on Social Security.

Note that per your first caller, the retirement age for her will already be 67 for full benefits, as it will be for anyone born 1960 or after. Please don't let misinformation continue.

And Social Security is solvent through the 2030s. So don't believe the scare tactics

You know, all this talk about raising the retirement age presupposes that older people won't be getting forced into retirement! It's unrealistic. How many 67 year olds do you see keeping their jobs? How many of our parents have been forced into retirement by the age of 63? Not officially, of course, but through coercion and other means. Good luck if you young people think you'll still be employable (in the eyes of employers) at the age of 67! At the age of 62 no less! Ha. Good luck to you.

There is just about zero chance that Social Security will be there for today's young people. And the reason is that they are choosing not to vote.

When Romney says "we won't change Medicare or Social Security for those over 55," what he is really saying is that older people vote, so no politician would dare cross them. Young people don't vote, and in today's resource constrained environment, they will lose.

What younger people seem not to realize is that politicians today have precise demographic info on who is and who is not voting. By not voting, they are literally handing over money out of their pocket to others.

Pay everything with new money and control inflation.

You can cut the EPA's budget by half & there's no effect?? I wouldn't say that reflects reality! Doesn't this game take into account what the effects would be in the real world, beyond the budget? What about the increased no. of people who would have respiratory diseases if air pollution laws aren't enforced due to the budget cuts, & the increased costs of their health care? For a more (literally!) concrete model, does cutting spending on infrastructure result in the need to spend more to replace a bridge that collapses because of money wasn't spent to maintain it?

We need more native born young people, and fewer old people, and my bloated baby boomer generation will start to die off in the next few decades, and so the combination of those two would solve most of the budgetary problems.

Oh, Barry from Harlem: You are talking about those among the most vulnerable in our population. Right now, those under 35 *can't find jobs,* or often find only minimum wage jobs--and those lucky enough to find jobs are making less than those who got similar jobs before 2007. While housing, food, and transportation costs continue to rise. How on earth are they supposed to "save," especially considering the pathetic interest rates "savings" accounts are currently paying? As the daughter of 85-year-old parents who are essentially independent, they are still baffled by dealing with the hyperfast world they're in (they had landline phones in the hallway when they were growing up!). And they are supposed to deal with the complications of, say, investing or searching for higher interest rates--money management--to obtain decent level incomes at that age? Ridiculous.

Brava to your first caller. Positive thinker with good ideas.

Increase retirement age for Social Security.
"Death panels" for Medicare- only slightly joking. Waaaaay too much is spent on end of life care that does not lengthen or improve end of life. See recent articles in Time magazine and elsewhere describing this first person. 20% of people use about 80% of funds. When it's my time I don't want to waste away in a hospital bed. Put me in hospice and let me go.
Penalties/additional surcharges for future Medicare recipients who are obese or smoke. Anyone who is alive now knows that being fat and smoking will shorten your life. By the time you are at retirement age, you should pay more of you are far or have a history of smoking. I am Fred of laying for others' terrible decisions.
NO means test for Social Security. SS is NOT and entitlement. It is a retirement pension in which everyone pays in and everyone gets money back. That is why it is not taxed on your entire income. I vote Democratic and support a progressive income tax, but SS is MY money that I expect back when I retire. It is not an entitlement.

There are no fiscal problem with either program.
I object to the question.
You are being manipulated by rightwing scare tactics.

Brian- Didn't you have an economist on earlier in the week who said that Social Security is self-sustaining and that it is not in financial crisis?

An additional option:

Stop capping the *income level* at which the Social Security tax is part of payroll taxes. Right now, people making $1,000,000 in salary are taxed at the same level as those making, I think the current level is $109,000. Removing this cap altogether would resolve the problems.

You can reduce the time period for SS and Medicare to 10 years only between 70 and 80 starting from those who are 35 years or younger now. That's it. After that(and before) you're on your own. No lifetime benefit. It would force people under 35yrs of age and unde to save or make other arrangements if they think they will live longer.

"Being there for you when the time comes"?

Funny, how Brian perpetuates the same myths which pervade the thoroughly dishonest discourse SS and Medicare receive in official Washington, thanks to the billionaire deficit scolds and tax cut devotees like Pete Peterson and a financial industry dying to get its hands on SS contributions in the form of private accounts.

How about this "solution"?

1) We do absolutely nothing and SS will "be there", at about 75% level, for years and years to come. Or we could merely raise the income cap. Too terrible for words?

2) The problem with Medicare is the problem of health costs generally in the U.S., which are double or triple of other industrial democracies, including expensive places like Norway and Japan. Ergo, the problem isn't Medicare, but for-profit fee-for-service medicine. Pretending otherwise is an outright deception.