Gentlemen: Social Security is ALREADY means tested in two ways. First, in computing a monthly retirement benefit, it replaces a larger fraction of a worker's income when that income is smaller. Then, then the recipient (including rich geezers like me) pays income taxes on the social security benefit and a surtax for Obamacare. We couldn't deduct our FICA payments at the time, but when the money comes back to us, we have to pay income taxes on it -- double penalty. When you advocate means testing, it would be helpful if you include recognition of the amount of means testing already in the program. Further, please consider a life, fire, or casualty insurance policy you might buy. If, when it comes time to pay off, the insurance company declines to pay, or pays only part of the insured amount, because the insurance company feels you don't need the payoff. The caterwauling about immoral corporations would then be deafening, but you may be OK with the federal government stiffing us. If need is the basis of Social Security payouts, then the program becomes welfare, rather than a universal program, and its public support would decline. (Wouldn't it?) Of course, it would be burdensome on young struggling families to pay higher social security tax. Old guys like me are already helping those families through property taxes that go largely or mostly for schools for the children of those young families. At this point, I am not advocating any particular policy. I'm just commenting on pros and cons of your naked, unsupported statement "Yep, they definitely need to means test your SS." To that extent, I am behaving like the statesman of my dreams, one who admits both the costs and benefits of his proposals, and faces political realities too. Note to that person: Geezers VOTE.