In case it is not just trolling, I suggest you read about the tragedy of the commons:
It reads an awful lot like a list of "things that other people need but I don't". It's also a weird mishmash of things that aren't federal and things whose total expenditure is such a tiny percentage of tax dollars that you could zero them out while making a rounding error in your paycheck. Things that actually have large budgets -- the military, social security, roads, primary education, police and fire departments -- are also things that they benefit from.
I presume you don't mean either of those, but I'm at a loss to tell what you do mean. What exactly do you have in mind?
I'm not sure that "below" is quite correct - when Social Security was started, retirement was 65 and average life expectancy was 67 or 68. I'm pretty sure it wasn't below 65. But still, it was close - not 80 but keeping retirement at 65.
So, yes, that would work. It would make Social Security solvent very well. The second-order effect would probably be to increase unemployment, though, at least if you required it for people who are already retired.
They have moved up the retirement age, but less than the life expectancy has moved.
Anecdotally, many people will tell you that they wouldn't want to live forever, that mortality is what gives life meaning and urgency. No one wishes to go on...
[1] https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017....
I've thought about this quite a bit. If you mean to say people would all be rich and have 'the luxe life' but they had to tap out at 30, how many would reach that point and regret their decision?
For example, if life expectancy was 80, and you stopped offering treatment for cancer and pneumonia at 80. That's significantly different from tapping out at 30, or even 60.
But if we actually did that, then life expectancy would probably drop. So we'd lower the age at which we cut off medical care. Then the life expectancy would probably drop some more.
Mind you, I'm not saying that I agree with legerdemain. I'm just saying that I think that your particular criticism of his idea is off base.
You don't have to stop offering treatment. You can selectively incentivize research into proactive and prophylactic interventions. Set a higher bar for quality-adjusted life years late-life treatment should provide before becoming the standard of care.
Or, as the current US administration is signaling, just minimize pandemic precautions with the expectation that the burden of death will fall predominantly to the very old, regardless of the simplistic measures their families remember to take. Can't get to herd immunity without at least some "collateral damage" to the elderly.
In case you haven't read the wiki page you linked yourself, privatization is exactly the solution to the tragedy of the commons, and illustrating the benefits of private enterprise is exactly why the tragedy of the commons is ever brought up.