All that said, looking at your proposal...
Over 65, and under, say, $15,000.00 yearly income, a check is mailed. Period.
Technically, I have no income & haven't had any for a number of years. I get no money from the government on any level, but instead I get to pay taxes, though right now it's just sales & property taxes. I'm not part of the underground economy. Can I see what I'm trying to tell you? Do you want to force me to disclose all of my assets and/or my net worth the the federal government? If not, you're saying that I'd be among those deserving "welfare".
If Social Security is to be a retirement program, or if you prefer, an involuntary, post-retirement, supplemental income for worker's, then it's funds MUST be invested.
Demographics are a strange & funny thing. There is a dirty little secret that everyone seems to be trying to pretend can't be true. All of our markets depend on activity. As old boomers downsize their homes or sell out of the housing market completely as they are sent to senior citizen warehouses or into the gutters, there will be an over abundance of houses & all of the gewgaws necessary for them.
I only hope I have enough saved to ride out the inflation that will be the only "out" that I can see. There is a small possibility of our getting into yet another "new kind" of economy, one that we don't see or know about yet, though we're barely into this one, the "information age". Some currently unimagined new fuel source or "thinking machines" could the the trigger that would set if off.
Regarding your situation, I don't know of anyone who has proposed a "balance sheet" means test. Your assets, balanced against your liabilities, are totally your business. What has been proposed, in several versions, is a means test of income, not net assets. And while arguably it would be intrusive, and generally insert the camel's nose under the tent flap, to question your assets, it will be difficult to argue that you should receive the effective FICA taxes of two young fathers sweating at the local gasoline station, but should have no obligation to disclose whether or not you receive "sideways" income by renting out several properties and having your wife or some other relative collect the rents, as an example.
I have no interest in verbally sparring with someone who was born two years after me, being then 48 or 49, and yet who has "no income", and wishes to receive subsidy from the government. There are many reasons why you may have no income, perhaps injury or infirmity, or causes beyond your control. Many fine men served their country and deserve much more than they get. It is not for me to opine on your condition. My analysis piece merely argues that IF the Social Security program is to be a "welfare" type of program designed to insure that no person reaches old age, normally considered mid to late sixties, by the way, without having an adequate income, for whatever reason, as such an adequate income may be defined from time to time, it would obviously necessitate that the "inadequate" income be tested and certified. If this seems too intrusive, you are obviously welcome to upbrade the ones who are tasked to implement the system, should it be enacted as the law of the land. As for calling for your early demise, perhaps you have reason to feel slighted or badly treated. On this, I have no help to offer you. Frankly, I don't know you. If my analysis gives offense, I stand convicted. But I wouldn't place all of my hopes on some new magic technology that will re-enable us to spend money like spoiled teenagers. I think a better solution will be for us all to grow up and pull our share of the wagon, and keep a tight grip on the IOU's we write on our grandchildren's futures. But then, that's just me.