The financial safety net has to be funded via tax.

This is where you, and the majority of politicians and economists, go wrong.

Not only is a tax not necessary, but it is impossible to accomplish in the real world of federal spending and economics. Any tax, not just Social Security or Medicare, can only diminish the spending power of the individual, or group, paying the tax and should never be confused with "paying for" any future spending by the monopoly issuer of the currency.

As the only entity with such monopoly power, the federal government always has an infinite amount of its currency available to purchase anything that can be sourced in the private sector and priced in its currency. There simply is no "infinite+1" in math that would better enable the (federal) government's ability to pay beneficiaries any amount it chooses by collecting its currency back.

Social Security is NOT a retirement fund. That concept must be made clear to US Citizens so that Social Security can be used strictly as a safety net for the poorest and people in dire situations.

Ask your next waitress or cab driver how much they have saved for retirement. The concept you present is one of extreme privilege and from an entitled perspective that fewer Americans can afford than even during the depression when FDR initiated the program. His primary economic advisors decried the tax as an unnecessary burden on the poor and lower working class at the time, but he insisted that the tax would help dissuade the opposition from drastically cutting benefits that those Americans felt they had "invested in".

The debate prompted Beardsley Ruml, his top economic advisor, to write a white paper titled "Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete" while Chairman of the New York Fed. https://cdn.mises.org/AA1946_VIII_1_2.pdf

He understood that the United States could never default on its debt as long as it retained the power to create its unit of account. That would transfer to any program or benefit legally enacted by Congress and the President, regardless of revenue position, past or future.

We may not need a 14% Sales Tax to support Social Security when it is a financial safety net, not a general retirement claim fund.

We don't need it now and never have. The Constitution mandates Congress to "coin" (create) the currency "for the general welfare" (Article 1: Section 8) without reference to any such creation being "paid for". Given the lack of any substantive connection between the power to tax and to spend currency into existence in any of our founding documents, it can only be assumed that the founders understood how "money" works and didn't think that future generations would be less informed.

They will also ensure Social Security has enough funds to support the projected needs. When the fund is projected to be insufficient, the Administration must reduce benefits to secure Social Security.

If the "funds" in the special bond account for the program fund the benefits then answer this: "Why would the benefits ever be placed at risk by Congress failing to raise the debt ceiling?" Please don't insult me, or yourself, with the "stolen funds" nonsense in attempting to formulate an answer.

One of the few conservatives I might listen to concerning Social Security was Alan Greenspan, especially when he was under oath. He understood the role of government in the economy and how money is created by government spending in deficit of taxation. His answer to Paul Ryan, while certainly not what Ryan was hoping to hear from him, was classical Greenspan and proposes the "fix" everyone is looking for. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4923562/user-clip-alan-greenspan-answers-paul-ryan