Seaver, I'm not sure that idea will work. First of all, the government shouldn't be drastically changing the retirement age. Second of all, the scarcity of jobs right now means that introducing a very large new pool of workers will lower wages further as well as drive out either youngsters - who need to get their careers started and begin paying into Social Security - or the elderly, who will now be without Social Security benefits for several years, from the job market.
Thirdly, the "people live longer" argument isn't really a solid one. Most of the rise in average age length derives from a decrease in child mortality over the decades, not from longer lives lived after the age of 65. In fact, the Social Security Administration explains:
"However, as Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has only increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940. So the actual increase in time that males can anticipate receiving Social Security is closer to 3 years than to 14."
You can find the above quote here.
You are correct that few people retire permanently in their 40s. That is why Social Security benefits start being paid at age 65.
To sum up: the age issue really isn't a problem, and I don't think it is in the best interest of the government to fix what ain't broke.