Love it or hate it, many of us will rely on Social Security. And that’s making a lot of us very nervous.

This week in Life Inc., we wrote about how the latest plan to tweak Social Security is unpopular with both liberal and conservative thinkers. The story prompted tens of thousands of readers to weigh in on their hopes, fears and frustrations about the retirement safety net.

Many readers said they would like to see Congress take steps now to address the funding shortfalls that are projected in years to come.

“Fix the program now - while it's still ‘easy.’ Later changes will cost much more. We can lessen the impact to the less-wealthy recipients,” one reader wrote.

That’s not surprising, given how many readers said they will need those monthly checks in old age.

More than half of the nearly 36,000 readers who took our survey said they plan to rely on Social Security for day-to-day expenses.

Many Americans simply haven’t saved enough money to fund their retirement, especially now that the burden of saving has started shifting toward self-directed 401(k) plans and away from company pensions.

“I have my own retirement account, but it's not going to pay my total expenses. I'll need the Social Security benefits I've earned,” one reader wrote.

For others, Social Security has become a lifeline after losing other savings during the Great Recession and weak recovery.

“I lost all my money on a business that was too small to save in 2009. (unlike Wall st and GM) I only have SS to live on now,” another wrote.

For many Americans – including about 37 percent of those who took our survey – Social Security will be a key supplement to other savings.

“I'm not relying on it but it is a big share of my retirement plan. I worked and earned it! I should get the fair share my parents did!” one reader wrote.

About 10 percent of our readers were more cynical about the future of Social Security. They said they weren’t planning on getting that monthly check once they retired.

“If I get SS, great - but I'm planning and saving as if I'll never get anything from it,” one wrote.

Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA

President Barack Obama speaks about his budget proposal at the White House earlier this month.

There’s not much that the left and right can agree on these days, but many on both sides appear to have found a common foe in the latest plan to address Social Security costs.

The proposal, unveiled as part of President Barack Obama’s latest budget plan, would change the method the government uses to calculate inflation to something called the “chained Consumer Price Index.”

The chained CPI assumes that when prices go up for one item, like beef, people don’t always simply spend more. Instead, they sometimes switch to a similar but lower-priced item, like chicken.

Critics on both sides say the proposal would essentially amount to a benefits reduction for Social Security recipients, because it would result in smaller cost-of-living increases for them.

“In effect, you’d have a substantial cut to the program,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

The left-leaning think tank estimates that the average worker retiring at age 65 would see a $650 a year cut by age 75. Those cuts would only increase as retirees got older and the gap between the new inflation measure and the old one grew wider.

(The president's proposal does include a benefits enhancement for people 76 and older and those who have been on Social Security for a long time, which could partly offset the switch.)

Baker and others also argue that the chained CPI is a bad idea because it’s a poor measure of how older people really spend money. That’s because retirees tend to spend more on items like health care.

Baker notes that an experimental consumer price index for the elderly, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been compiling for some time, indicates a slightly higher rate of inflation for older Americans.

There are plenty of critics on the conservative side too. Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said one concern is that it hits current retirees the hardest, while not doing enough to address the long-term solvency of the retirement safety net.

“I would just think people should aim higher than this,” Biggs said.

The proposed inflation calculation change would also apply to tax rates, which could result in tax increases for some over time. That’s another reason conservatives oppose the plan to more broadly use the chained CPI for government inflation estimates.

“It’s a sneaky revenue raise and it’s a sneaky benefit cut,” said Teresa Ghilarducci, director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at The New School for Social Research who has studied retirement issues extensively.

The fact that both conservatives and liberals oppose the change caught some people off guard because Obama has painted the proposal as an effort to compromise with Republicans. The proposal to switch to the chained CPI appeared to have support from both Obama and House Speaker John Boehner when it was first under discussion during the fiscal cliff negotiations late last year.

The widespread opposition also is surprising because the switch has historically been seen as one of the least contentious elements of any major plan to reform Social Security, said Richard Kaplan, a law professor at the University of Illinois who specializes in elder law.

“This has always been on the menu and in fact it’s usually been considered the least controversial item on the menu,” Kaplan said. “If you don’t like this, you’re not going to like anything on the rest of the menu.”

Most economists agree that the government will eventually have to make some changes to Social Security, because of government estimates showing that the benefits program for older Americans could see funding shortfalls beginning in about two decades.

Any major reform would involve making big, hard decisions about major elements of the Social Security system, such as the age at which people receive benefits and the rate at which earnings are taxed for Social Security purposes.

Ghilarducci, the economist at The New School, said she thinks another reason the chained CPI proposal hasn’t garnered much support is because it is a small step that does little to address those bigger issues. 

“It’s more important that we actually construct a package in a more deliberative fashion,” she said.

 Related: Yes, we can fix Social Security (but it won't be pretty)

Most Americans think it’s important to preserve adequate Social Security benefits for younger generations — and they may even be willing to pay more taxes to get that assurance, a new survey finds.

The survey, released Thursday by the nonprofit National Academy of Social Insurance, found that about eight in 10 Americans think it is critical to support Social Security even if it means that working Americans have to pay more in taxes. A slightly higher percentage of the 2,000 people surveyed said they think it’s critical to save Social Security even if wealthy people have to pay more.

But here’s the thing: Many Americans also want something in return.

The study found broad-based support among both younger and older Americans for a plan that would gradually increase the amount of payroll taxes everyone pays and also eliminate the cap on the amount of income that can be taxed for Social Security. In return, that plan would call for raising minimum benefits and increasing cost-of-living-adjustments.

The survey comes as many Americans are growing more worried about whether they will see any Social Security benefits at all. Under current government estimates, Social Security could face funding shortfalls in about two decades because the U.S. population is aging and generally living longer.

Experts say it’s not too surprising to find that older people are heavily in favor of retaining Social Security benefits even if it means paying more taxes, but it’s a little more surprising to find that younger Americans also seem to  support it generally.

Still, after five difficult years in which many people have struggled financially, many workers may see the allure of a plan that would give them some financial certainty late in life.

“Social Security wasn’t designed to be a sole major source of retirement income, but for many people who haven’t saved enough … it certainly looks attractive,” said Alan Auerbach, director of the Robert D. Burch Center for Tax Policy and Public Finance at UC Berkeley.

Jasmine Tucker, income security research associate with the National Academy of Social Insurance, said she thinks the results show that people are willing to pay extra taxes for Social Security because they know that they will see a return on that investment later in life.

“People seem to be very resistant to raising any taxes, but I think Social Security is different,” she said.

Other studies have found support for raising taxes more narrowly on wealthy Americans to help fund Social Security. A Pew Research Center survey released in December found that 66 percent of Americans would support raising payroll taxes on high-income earners, while 55 percent would support reducing benefits for high-income seniors.

Related: Are you struggling in the suburbs? We want to hear from you.

Still, Auerbach – who was not involved in the study – noted that it’s one thing for people to say they would be willing to pay more taxes to help fund Social Security, and quite another for them to actually commit to a plan that would effectively shrink their current paycheck.

“Do people really know what this would mean in terms of their take-home pay? Have they really thought through what the implications are?” Auerbach asked.

Many Americans are seeing that real-world effect right now, because the end to the payroll tax holiday has resulted in an effective tax hike equal to about 2 percent of their wages. This survey was conducted in September, before the payroll tax holiday ended.

Critics also argue that it may not be feasible to fix Social Security’s funding woes just by raising taxes. Many other plans have called for a mix of raising taxes and reducing benefits either by curtailing cost-of-living adjustments or increasing the age at which people can get full benefits.

“There’s no attractive way to do this. There’s just a variety of less attractive ways,” said Andrew Biggs, resident scholar with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

Biggs also argued that despite what the findings show, it would be difficult for politicians to garner support for a plan that involved raising taxes on all Americans.

“If this stuff was so popular, somebody would have proposed it by now,” he said.

It is clear that Americans are anxious for Congress and President Barack Obama to find some way to overhaul Social Security and other programs designed to help older Americans.

A Gallup poll released just days after the 2012 presidential election found that nearly nine in 10 Americans thought it was important for  Obama to take major steps to ensure the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare. 

Related: Yes, we can fix Social Security (but it won't be pretty) 

A Life Inc. post this week on ways to fix Social Security’s longer term funding issues prompted an intense debate over whether the system can be fixed, how to do it – and when.

Social Security could start to face funding shortfalls in about two decades if nothing is done. Experts say now would be a good time to think about how to fix the potential shortfalls, because it would give lawmakers years to ease in the changes gradually.

Many also note that there are some relatively simple, if not very popular, ways to amend the current system. They include raising taxes on some or all Americans, reducing benefits and extending the age at which people can start collecting benefits.

Many readers agreed that now is the time for action.

“Fixing it before it goes broke is easier and less painful than waiting. Get it done. Now,” one reader urged.

But others – perhaps watching how little progress politicians have made on the fiscal cliff negotiations - were more skeptical about whether the current roster of lawmakers would take any meaningful action.

“Our collective first mistake is to trust politicians,” one reader lamented.

Readers also were starkly divided on whether Social Security benefits will be available to them when they retire,

“I'm paying all of this money into SS that will likely not be paying back what I put in. I'm tired of supporting everyone when I need to (save),” one reader wrote.

Others noted that confidence about receiving benefits is probably tied to age.

“This is an age sensitive question. I'm 59, so I suspect my answer is quite different than my youngest child's would be at 27,” another wrote.

Still, some also pointed out that people have been worrying about Social Security for decades, and yet it’s still around.

“I'm 72 and all of my life it's been said Social Security was going to run out of money. Yet 2 years ago I began withdrawing my deposits,” one reader wrote.

The fiscal cliff negotiations are reviving the debate about that other financial elephant in the room: Social Security.

Under current government estimates, Social Security could face funding shortfalls in about two decades if nothing changes. That’s because the U.S. population is aging -- and generally living longer.

That sounds like a disheartening scenario for workers who are currently paying into Social Security and worry that they won’t get as much out of it once they retire.  About half of the Americans polled by Pew Research Center earlier this year believe it’s not likely there will be enough money in Social Security and Medicare to maintain current benefit levels into the future.

But experts say there are ways to fix Social Security. Politicians just may not like trying to sell those changes to the American people.

It has happened before, though. In the mid-1980s, none other than President Ronald Reagan, working with Democrats in Congress, oversaw a major overhaul of the nation’s retirement safety net.

That’s something many say seems less likely these days.

“There are politicians – and especially in the Senate but also in the House as well – who could work together and come to an agreement,” said Alan Auerbach, a professor of law and economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “But they’re not the majority of Congress.”

Experts say there are two ways to fix Social Security, and neither of them are pretty: reduce benefits or increase revenue.

Reduce benefits
One of the few parts of the fiscal cliff negotiations that President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner seem willing to compromise on involves a change in the way Social Security increases are calculated going forward. 

The proposed switch to calculating cost of living increases using the chained Consumer Price Index instead of the current method would result in smaller annual Social Security raises. That’s because that method assumes that people change their spending habits when prices go up.

Proponents say the switch could save billions and is a more realistic method of how Americans really adjust to rising prices.

But opponents say the chained Consumer Price Index isn’t a good way to measure the needs of older and disabled Americans, because their expenditures are disproportionately focused on things like health care. A family of four may choose to eat more chicken if beef prices go up, but an elderly person can’t easily choose to spend less on heart medicine, they argue.

 “It’s the biggest hit on the people that couldn’t take it,” said Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research who is opposed to the measure.

One of the longer-term options for reducing benefits is to simply tell people they have to wait longer to get their full benefits. By extending the age at which you can get full benefits, proponents argue that Social Security would be keeping up with trends toward longer life expectancies.

But opponents, including CEPR’s Dean Baker, say that a closer look at the data shows that the bulk of improvements in life expectancies have come from wealthier Americans. They say a broad-based increase in the age at which people can get benefits would punish less wealthy Americans, who haven’t seen such big life expectancy gains.

Andrew Biggs, resident scholar with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, argues that another option would be to dial down benefits for middle- and high-income people while maintaining the current system for the poorest Americans.

Biggs argues that if wealthy people are told to expect less Social Security, they have more leeway to prepare for it than poor people.

“If you cut my Social Security benefits I’m going to react by saving money and working longer,” he said. “That’s good for the economy.”

Another option would be to reduce the Social Security benefits available to spouses. Some critics argue that’s growing outdated now that more women work and earn their own Social Security payments.

“It’s kind of a relic from a different era,” Baker said.

Increase revenue
Under the current rules, the maximum taxable earnings for Social Security in 2012 is about $110,000. Some argue that an easy fix would be to simply raise the cap on Social Security taxes to include higher wages. 

Baker, of CEPR, proposes raising the cap to around $190,000, reflecting the growing wealth at the top of the income scale. Raise it higher than that, he said, and wealthy earners will just start finding ways to dodge it.

But others say that it’s unlikely politicians will propose raising taxes on high earners now, when many expect those taxpayers to already see increases as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

“The timing of it just seems kind of awkward,” Auerbach said.

Another option would be to add an across-the-board increase in payroll taxes that go toward Social Security. Although that would help solve the system’s future funding woes, experts say it’s also likely to be a hard sell in these tough times.

For one thing, Americans may already be facing higher payroll taxes in 2012. For the past two years, Americans have enjoyed a payroll tax holiday that reduced the amount of money they paid toward Social Security, but that could end in the coming year.

“I suspect that’s going to be a not very attractive option right now,” Auerbach said.

Politicians may be nervous about proposing any reform to Social Security that costs more or results in fewer benefits, but Americans seem to accept that some changes are needed.

About 66 percent of those polled by Pew Research Center said they would support raising payroll taxes on high-income earners, while 55 percent said they would support reducing benefits for high-income seniors.

Just 38 percent said they’d support raising the eligibility age.

Farnoosh Torabi

Some people think about saving for retirement in their twenties, others start contemplating rocking chair resources after they hit the big 40.

With a recent report that Social Security funds are dwindling, folks of all ages are wondering if they'll have enough to retire comfortably. 

What ever age or type of saver you are, the key is coming up with an action plan, advised personal finance expert Farnoosh Torabi, who was on hand Wednesday to answer readers' retirement money questions during our weekly live web chat.

A poll of readers who participated in the chat found only 11 percent are sure they'll have enough funds to enjoy those golden years; while 33 percent said they definitely won't have enough money, and 56 percent weren't sure.

How much should you be socking away? asked one 40-plus reader.

“Had you been consistently saving since your twenties, I'd say 10 percent would be enough,” maintained Torabi, author of “Psych Yourself Rich: Get the Mindset and Discipline You Need to Build Your Financial Life”, and host of "Financially Fit" on Yahoo. “But if you've just begun saving in your forties, you should be as aggressive as you can be by putting about 15 percent towards your employer's 401(k), or more, and opening up an IRA or two to supplement the 401(k).”

For the 20-something wondering how she should start and worried about paying hefty commissions, Torabi had this advice:

“I would 100 percent recommend doing two things: Invest in your company's 401(k). Contribute 10 percent or at least enough to benefit from the full match your company may provide. Second, open a Roth IRA. You can open one up at any brokerage - Fidelity, Vanguard, Charles Schwab. The cheapest way to open one is probably going to a local credit union or your existing bank and opening a retirement account there. I have one with ING Direct, as well. No brokerage fees!”

Here are some more highlights from the Q&A with Torabi:

Bobby asked:

“Hi, I'm 68 years old with no retirement or pension funds, just $20,000 I've saved up over the years in the bank. I just got fired from my job as a factory worker because my entire left side got paralyzed after a stroke and I have no education at all besides a high school diploma, so what should I do with my money to maintain myself? Should I invest it in stocks or gamble it away in Vegas, because they're both just as risky aren't they?”

Torabi’s advice:

“Vegas is beautiful this time of year, but I would encourage you to continue to save that $20,000 and -- are you collecting disability? Check out this site to learn how to get compensated: http://www.ssa.gov/disability/.”

LaTonya asked:

“I am not sure if I am putting enough away for retirement. My husband and I both have jobs with pensions and health benefits at retirement (30 years). In addition to our pension contributions we have a Roth IRA that we contribute the max to each year. Is it safe to depend on our pension and not contribute more to private retirement accounts?”

Torabi’s advice:

“I never like to put all my eggs in one basket! And while you still have a pension (and that's so amazing!) I would try to diversify my savings -- you never know what could happen to those pensions or whether they'll be enough. It's always best to have a separate IRA to, again, diversify your savings and allow for multiple income streams in retirement.” 

For a full look at out web chat with Torabi go here:

No matter how old you are, chances are you’ve been hit in some way by the current economic hard times, and you may be feeling the repercussions for some time to come.

This week on Life Inc., we wrote about a government report noting that older workers could be especially hard-hit in retirement because they don’t have time to play catch up from the stock market drop and housing bust. In addition, it’s extremely tough for the 50-plus crowd to find a new job if they lose their current one.

The post prompted many readers to recount their own stories of hitting economic hard times just when they thought they’d be gearing up to enjoy their golden years.

“Lost 40% of my IRA in '08, laid off at 64, forced to sell my home for 35% less than 5 years ago. Good health and job skills, but no jobs,” one reader wrote.

More than 60 percent of our readers told us they’re worried about having enough money for retirement.

Another worry: Whether Social Security will be there to provide a safety net in old age.

In another post this week, we wrote about a study showing that 50 percent of young adults don’t think Social Security will exist at all by the time they reach retirement age.

Many readers share the same worries, and some fret that political gridlock will keep the government from making reforms that could bolster the fund.

“Changes that need to be made aren't going to happen because of all the political bickering. BOTH parties are to blame,” one reader argued.

Back to the here and now. The Occupy Wall Street protesters may get criticized for not having a clear vision, but there’s no doubt they’ve already accomplished one thing: They’ve gotten us talking about the haves and the have-nots in this country.

This week, we reported on a nifty tool that lets you see what percent you are when it comes to wealth. That prompted a heated discussion among our readers over how you make it to the wealthiest 1 percent. 

One reader noted that for some, becoming wealthy may not be the ultimate goal.

 “In other words, don't be a teacher, an artist, a policeman, a soldier, a minister, or a craftsman, and certainly don't waste your money on other people. Being a money-maker is the only goal worth while. And a money-maker is a taker, not giver. What a rotten prescription for a livable society!” the reader wrote.

No matter how wealthy you are, it’s nice to save some money here and there. This week, we offered some frugal food tips for getting protein in your diet without breaking your pocketbook.

Over on our Today Money Facebook page, many readers shared their own tips for reducing their grocery bill. They included cooking from scratch, reusing leftovers in other meals and planning out meals before you head to the store.

iOMe Challenge

Grandma and Grandpa may be getting a Social Security raise, but half of their grandkids are pretty sure they won’t see any Social Security at all.

That’s according to a new poll from the Strategic Research Institute at St. Norbert College in De Pere, Wis. It’s working with several other organizations on the iOMe Challenge, which seeks to help young people think about their financial future.

Apparently, they don’t think there’s much future there at all, at least when it comes to Social Security.

The online survey, which included a nationally representative sample of 642 18- to 29-year-olds, found only 5 percent expect that the Social Security benefits they stand to receive at age 67 to be about the same as the ones retirees are receiving today.

In addition to the 50 percent who don’t think it will exist at all, another 28 percent thought it would exist but the benefits would be much smaller. Eighteen percent weren’t sure what would happen.

Social Security is at risk of running short of funds unless some changes are made, because the general population is both aging and living longer. Proposals include raising the Social Security tax cap, increasing the age at which you start collecting Social Security and reducing benefits.

David Wegge, executive director of the Strategic Research Institute, noted that no matter what happens with Social Security, millennials will likely have to rely more on their own savings than previous generations. That’s because pensions also are becoming much less common.

“There’s much more responsibility that’s being placed on an individual’s shoulder,” Wegge said.

The survey found that about four in 10 millennials are setting aside some money for retirement each month. The ones who don’t think Social Security will be there when they retire were also the least likely to be currently saving for retirement.

Even those who are setting money aside are generally not saving very much.

That’s not surprising given the current economy. The unemployment rate for 25- to 34-year-olds was at 9.7 percent in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For 20- to 24-year-olds, it was 14.7 percent.

Even those who have jobs may not have much left over at the end of the month. In general, younger workers tend to earn lower wages because they are just starting out, and that may be especially true right now.

In addition, Wegge noted, many younger workers may be trying to pay off student loans.

“I think that generation is coming into the workforce at a very challenging time,” he said.

Related:

Social Security recipients are getting a raise

Who pays if Social Security tax cap is lifted? Not many taxpayers

Of Social Security and Ponzi schemes

We’re having fewer babies, and some say that’s a good thing.

A report from Pew Social & Demographic Trends offering further evidence that the economy is playing a role in declining birth rates got a lot of Life Inc. readers talking this week — about whether less kids could be good for our country, and our planet.

“That speaks very well for our country. People aren't just randomly cranking out kids. They're waiting for solid economic times so the kids will be safe,” one reader commented.

Many readers seem to feel that the world has enough people already, and complained that they think people who aren’t equipped to raise children are having them.

“This is great, why bring more children into this overpopulated planet?” one reader said.

Still, some argued that without an influx of kids, who’s going to be paying into our Social Security?

Maybe it could be wealthy people.

Another popular post on Life Inc. this week showed that less than 6 percent of workers would be affected if the cap on Social Security taxes were lifted to help pay for a potential funding shortfall.

The vast majority of the more than 11,000 people who voted in our poll felt that people with higher incomes should pay Social Security taxes on at least some of their earnings above $106,800..

 “I am normally not for raising taxes, but this does make sense to me,” one reader noted.

Still, others argued that Social Security had bigger problems.

“Social Security is a joke. The whole thing needs to be reworked. Charging those of us whom will never benefit from it is not the answer,” one reader wrote.

On to more immediate pocketbook issues: Peanut butter. A report this week on how peanut butter prices are on the rise got a pretty big rise out of our readers.

Many readers said it wasn’t the only grocery item they seem to be paying more for these days.

“It would be news if you found something that ISN'T going up in price!” one reader wrote on our Today Money Facebook page.

Center for Economic and Policy Research

A breakdown of worker wages.

One of the proposals for keeping Social Security afloat is to simply ask for more money.

It turns out, not that many taxpayers would have to pay up.

A new analysis from the Center for Economic and Policy Research finds that less than 6 percent of workers would be affected if the government lifted the cap on Social Security taxes and applied it to earnings above $106,800.

Currently, taxpayers pay their share of Social Security taxes only on earnings up to $106,800. Any earnings above that are exempt from the tax.

Another plan that’s been tossed around would be to just charge Social Security tax on earnings of more than $250,000, but not to charge the tax on earnings between $106,800 and $250,000.

That plan would affect a little more than 1 percent of workers, the liberal-leaning think tank found in its analysis of the most recent American Community Survey data.

The move could potentially add trillions of dollars to Social Security coffers over the next 75 years, according to CEPR.

Social Security is at risk of becoming underfunded because the big Baby Boom generation is aging and people are generally living longer.

Other proposals for fixing Social Security include raising the age of eligibility and slowing cost of living increases.

Related:

Of Social Security and Ponzi schemes

Debt deal or not, Social Security reform is coming

How much you will — or won't — collect from Social Security

By John Schoen and Allison Linn

In the Republican debate Wednesday night, Presidential candidate Rick Perry again called Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

“It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, ‘You’re paying into a program that’s going to be there.’ Anybody that’s for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it’s not right,” Perry said during the debate.

A Ponzi scheme, named after investing fraudster Charles Ponzi, is a type of investment fraud in which someone convinces people to invest their money in a product, usually promising very high returns.

In a Ponzi scheme, however, there is no investment. Instead, the fraudster is using the new client’s money to pay off the old clients, and often for personal use as well. The scheme usually falls apart when people try to cash out and realize that there was no real investment in the first place.

The major marker of a Ponzi scheme is that the person running it was lying about how the money was invested. The most famous recent Ponzi scheme involved Bernie Madoff, who is currently in jail after swindling people in a multibillion-dollar scam.

Social Security is much like many other public and private pension systems that operate throughout the country, and the world.

It works like this: People pay a percentage of their earnings into the fund throughout their lifetime, with the promise of getting a consistent payment back when they retire. Millions of Americans rely on Social Security payments for expenses in retirement

Social Security has drawn criticism because it is at risk of becoming underfunded. That’s because the general population is aging, leading to worries that the system will fall short as more Baby Boomers retire and start drawing Social Security checks.

There have been overhauls before, such as under President Reagan.

Much like that 1980s-era overhaul, most people agree that Social Security now needs to be updated to account the fact that people are living longer.

One simple way to get the program back on track would involve raising the age of eligibility for future retirees -- whose longer projected lifespan means they’ll be collecting longer than previous generations. (The age of eligibility already rises gradually based on your birth year.)

Another proposed change would slow the future cost of living adjustments -- which some economists have argued currently rises faster than wage growth. These two changes -- which would not cut current benefits by a dime -- would go a long way to fixing the projected shortfall decades from now.

Critics of the Social Security system also argue that the government is “borrowing” money from the trust because it holds a large surplus of Treasury bonds. But any pension fund, insurance company or other financial entity with future obligations has to set aside money for future claims. U.S. Treasuries are one of the safest places to put that surplus. Some have argued that the trust fund should invest in stocks, but the money has to go somewhere.

Our story today on Social Security by senior producer John Schoen has generated more than 1,500 comments in just over three hours since publication. There is a reason the entitlement program is considered the "third rail" of politics.

While Democrats and Republicans debate whether to change Social Security benefits as part of a bitterly contested deficit-reduction plan, our story makes the point that ultimately changes are all but inevitable.

Among the likely changes outlined in the story:

• Raise the cap on wages subject to the Social Security Tax.
• Raise the retirement age.
• Change the formula for calculating benefits.

Needless to say, there is a lot of anger in the comments, even many of the more thoughtful ones. In general taxpayers who have been working for years express anger at the prospect they might have to pay more into the system or collect less in benefits.

The fight over Social Security is largely a generational battle, with younger workers blaming baby boomers and older retirees with somehow "rigging the system."

"As a 71-year-old, I have difficulty with getting inside the head of a 21 year old, but trust me, this was not a diabolical plan on our part," says one self-identified "grandma." Many commenters complain that the government has mismanaged the Social Security trust fund or squandered away billions.

One commenter, "Magnum Serpentine," calls our article bogus and contends the Social Security shortfall could be solved easily by drastically cutting the nation's military spending.

Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts below or on our Facebook page.