Sounds like lots of room for "simplified" cost shifting, i.e., elimination of a great deal of the total currently distributed. Social Security is an earned system available at 65, for the most part (soon to be 67.) You would have people just collecting "social security" for their whole lives beginning at 20, and be in the same boat as someone turning 65? You wouldn't track lifetime earnings to determine social security?
Social security's a middle-class retirement augmentation program, as it exists today. It's not a poverty relief program. It's more of a poverty prevention program, through a deferred compensation system.
In this specific instance, it's very clear that the proposal will trash some pretty well considered incentives. They only look well considered when we see alternatives like this to compare them to
I think we need to stop screaming and gnashing our teeth and pulling out our hair and accept that people are living longer and are already working longer to try to cope with it... AND we've got the baby boom moving into the ranks of the retired.
So plain fact, retirement in the future will cost us all more, not less.
Sounds like your "plan" is one size fits all, and would enable a happy lumping-in of retirees who worked all their lives until they got old (for example) with people who never worked a day in their lives.... and both of those
are lumped in with temporarily unemployed people, etc. etc. etc.
I'll pass. "Lets make everything simple" sounds like a bad match for the many situations people have out there.