Which of the following potential solutions to Social Security would you support?

Tax hike (27%) – "Social security is, and always has been, a forced retirement savings for employees who are unable to save for a retirement on their own (either because of medical issues/debt, low wages or personal spending habits). For it to continue in any meaningful way, employees and employers must contribute more."

• "A tax hike needs to be done, but specifically on the wealthy. It is the working-class people who deserve some financial stability in their retirement after busting their butts for years, so that the wealthy can live their whole lives luxuriously. The least companies can do is make sure that their workers are taken care of. Remember the whole "we're a family" mentality?"

"You didn't give the choice of raising the limit where social security taxes are applied. Raise it a lot higher, $200-$250,000 to start with. People making hundreds of thousands of $ could pay more. As it is my $40,000 is totally taxed by social security."

Benefit cut (8%) – "Cut benefits to current people drawing on social security. Unfortunately working class is worse off now in terms of wages, pensions, home ownership. Balance the squeeze and spread the funds for longevity."

Raise the min retirement age (13%) – "I know so many people in their early 70s that are very capable of working. Instead they're vacationing. They don't need money yet."

Some combination of the above (43%) – "Social security has long been a life line for many people. And Congress has known for many years about this issue and has not addressed it- shame on them. By making adjustments to all three, social security will.remain solvent for decades to come."

• "I don't think it is a one quick fix and done, but will take several steps to save. I also don't think that the 4 options listed are all the possible solutions. Anyone that thinks the solution is easy has not really thought about the whole issue very much."

"When I joined the workforce in the 1980's, this event was already projected to occur. It was publicized. It is not a surprise. The can has been kicked down the road. I have always planned on not getting a nickel back from my 40+ years of contribution. I don't know about you, but I can't expect a higher tax burden on the younger generation. That leaves cutting benefits and raising the age. The original plan was designed to pay out for only a few years - not decades. That's the key to its continued existence. No one likes that, but that's reality. If you are young, begin saving and always live below your means - or prepare to work until you die."

• "These aren’t any of the choices, but I think that if they adjusted benefits for higher income retirees, it would protect those making less. Also, if they change the cost of living adjustments, it would gradually save money overtime. Another solution would be to increase immigration workforce participation, meaning that more paying into the system would improve finances. However, being more realistic, a combination approach of the above would probably be best since it spreads the burden across multiple groups rather than we relying on a single major change."

Do nothing (9%) – "None of the issues presented solve the problem. Congress needs to stop borrowing from those funds and they need to invest the money into something that actually has a viable return rather than what has been done for so long. Social Security was never intended to be someone's primary retirement income and it should not be now."