That’s the question asked in the New York Times’ Room for Debate blog today. My answer is that we must increase the age eligibility for Social Security and tie it to increases in longevity rates. I was open about the fact that it’s a way to cut benefits even if people remain free to retire earlier. It seems fair, considering this remarkable data about older Americans’ wealth, standard of living, and life expectancy.

Americans over the age of 65 are in remarkably good shape compared to those of previous generations. Their average net worth has increased almost 80 percent over the past 20 years; they form a larger share of the high-income group and a smaller share in lower-income group than their predecessors; they are far better educated, and they live longer and healthier lives.

The good news is that I believe it is doable. While Americans are drawing an increasing share of their incomes from government transfers, they haven’t reached European levels of government dependency.

According to the economist Gary Shilling, today more than half of all Americans now depend on government for their income and the share of government transfer as a share of personal income is growing. But this number pales in comparison that found to most European countries. In my own country of France, for instance, everyone receives government money in one form or another.

The whole debate is here.