“...that is and was the way it was set up when they were forced to join...”
Forced to join is correct. Had I been able to “401-K” or otherwise invest the money I put into SS it would have resulted in millions of dollars during the time that it would have been invested. Had the employer contribution to SS been included in the invested amount, much much more would have resulted. The monthly income from that would have far exceeded what I get from SS. SS has been a rip-off for all of us forced to contribute to it.
You know, that is what I had - millions of dollars (okay maybe only a million or so). The demise of the market cost me over a million and much of that was probably avoidable if I was smart enough to diversify... but that remains the problem...regardless of investments, you can end up broke and worrying about the next check... So..in retrospect, I am glad for SS and actually dependent upon it. Not my plan but that is the way things turn out sometimes...
Now, that does not diminish my desire that SS be scaled back to only those that need it. If it is to be saved, it must be only on a need to be basis...
Yes, I know that even the “RICH” contribute to social security...but today, that had to take on a new meaning... I have no problem with those that can provide for themselves paying their own way - no SS... Not actually against them, but being practical within today’s situation.
It seems a few in Texas made the right decision???