All I said is that means testing is shifting it more towards insurance then savings. That's not a condemn or condone comment and FYI I don't bother arguing with Joel about everything he says I disagree with when I know he knows I don't agree with him already. If I did that he and I would extend our already lengthy back and forths to doorstopper novel lengths. As to your comment itself, no I don't think means testing is necessarily flat out wrong because it depends on the circumstance.

Hypothetical: I approach 50 18 year olds and offer them this deal. "From this point onward you will pay me $100 a month any month you make over $1000, until you turn 65. At the end of that period I will take the average life expectancy at that time, subtract 65 from it and divide the current sum by that and pay you each 1% of that value annually until you die, using 50% of the cash, and divide the other half up proportional to your payments in" that actually does 'screw' the people who paid in their hundred every month in favor of the guys who missed payments or maybe never paid in a dime because they always made under $1000 a month. Still many might find such a setup attractive. This is means testing, just on the accumulation phase rather than distribution, we could setup a hypothetical on the distribution end to, like people don't collect at all if their assets exceed 1 million or their total monthly income $5000. That's means testing and so long as everyone knew what they were getting into and had the choice, its not wrong.

Means testing isn't 'flat out wrong', a specific setup for it could be, though never if it is voluntary unless fraud is involved or some parallel to usury. I already said I consider the current SS setup to be about as morally bankrupt as SS's bank account will be if we don't fix it, so it would be a pretty obvious and correct guess I wouldn't favor the current system plus means testing.