Right now, the IRS will tax only 85% of your SS as regular income...so first they'll take it up to 100% TAXES isn't one of our higher expense categories, I'm not worried about it. If we have to cut back on discretionaries or hit our savings harder, so be it.then, they'll just keep the medicare bracket where it is, so with the nominal 4% real inflation, you'll be jacked up to the level where you pay the $248/per person for Medicare...except, of course, by then, that will only be worth half as much as today....but you'll get in the higher bracket.It certainly hasn't been 4% lately. And our income is nowhere near $170k, the next bracket for higher Medicare premiums. This will happen to some people, who apparently can afford it (higher income, ya know?), but not likely to us.Then, you'll have to report your assetsWe already do when we report what we put into retirement accounts and what our interest and dividends are. they'll determine first you have to take 5% a year of themYou already have to do that starting at age 70 with minimum withdrawals from IRAs. If I had to start doing that at age 65, meh. Then I'd spend down IRAs before taxable, whatever. And the taxable momey is, er, already being taxed.since you don't have an employer, they'd grab 13^ of your investment income. Right? Maybe for folks under age 65 (or whatever the heck Republicans are trying to change the retirement age to-), or income over $250k or something. Not likely middle income retirees.Phasing out the 50% spousal? What happens to 'stay at home moms' who never worked. Would you have them starving to death? or forced to marry or mooch of another for survival? Surely the libs won't stand for that!I don't care to pay for the "retirement" of some wife of a high income earner to home school their 6 kids to age 18 or whatever.The few women I know who never worked married young to wealthy men and do volunteer work. People like Ann Romney and my second cousin. They don't need America's SS taxes to pay for their retirement--unless they;re staying home with a disabled family member--that I have a great deal of sympathy for. Most of the women I know married to high-income men worked most of their adult lives, whether they had children or not. None were SAHMs for as long as I was--10 years at home followed by 6 years of "mother's hours" (9-2) is rare indeed. I do know women who worked for many years and still earned less than 50% of their husband's benefit, but that's because they're married to men who did so well they had very high SS benefits. Those women whose husbands didn't make much earned more than 50% of the hubby's benefit. It's really kind of a boondoggle for the stay-at-home or low-earning wives of the wealthy and professional class.A friend never had kids, worked for 40 years, and earned a small SS benefit, less than 50% of her husband's. However, he'll have 2 decent pensions (totaling $3-4k/month), a high SS benefit, plus savings. They don't need her 50% benefit. I'd prefer to see that $$ improve the benefits of the disabled and those who care for them.Many women don't have the job skills to earn but a minimum wage type job , maybe only part time. Most of them are married to men in the same boat, so they still out-earn that 50%. Whatever we're cutting back on these days, it shouldn't be job training.And 'some' women choose not to work but raise the kids. Maybe 8 of them for those Catholic, Mormon and Islamo families.Maybe we could afford to give such women a free pension years ago, but not any more. Big families are voluntary--unlike disabilities, chronic illness, or low IQ/low EQ, which can prevent someone from getting or keeping a job. I don;t want to cut the SS pension of those who earned them in favor of women who churned out "extra" kids on purpose for an excuse to avoid the work force (yes, I know women who did this--yikes).