Wikipedia says that Jeanne Calment of France lived to 122.
If I lived anywhere near that long surely I would need it.
I happened to run across a review of a book that was written after an interview with 500 centenarians: "Celebrate 100: Centenarian Secrets to Success in Business and Life". See:
Money secrets of centenarians- MSN Money. But you will not like what these 500 geezers said.
Hint: They said you should not retire early!
The upper income cap on FICA should be removed. Then I would also change SS payments to be proportional to the number of years you've contributed and not linked to the amount you've contributed over the years. This is how the UK does things to ensure those that worked for low wages get a livable benefit. I know this is heresy in the US, but as a socialist it just seems like a decent thing to do.
The SS benefit formula
already favors the low-income group, but perhaps it does not go as far as other nations.
As SS discussions come up here often, a while back I spent some time studying the Australian pension reform, and as I recall, it has some good features. At full retirement age, the retiree is guaranteed a minimum income which is more than $20K US, as I recall. This minimum baseline retirement income is means tested.
However, there is compulsory saving contribution, and on top of that workers are encouraged to save extra and invest in what is called a superannuation. This is their own money, similar to the US IRA or 401k. This has the desired effect that
"Australians now have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy... Compulsory superannuation in combination with buoyant economic growth has turned Australia into a 'shareholder society', where most workers are now indirect investors in the stock market. Consequently, a lively personal investment marketplace has developed, and many Australians take an interest in investment topics." See:
Superannuation in Australia - Wikipedia.
When people see that some money is set aside for them, and for themselves only, they will tend to save more. When people are taxed "according to ability", then the money is thrown into a common pot to be dished out "according to needs", they have no incentives to save, have no abilities left, and become very needy. People are no fools.
PS. That past thread is here:
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/social-security-for-tail-of-baby-boom-62245.html.