>>Your point is clear that you think that SS is somehow an “investment” when it is a tax.<<
No. My point was that if I had put the money in an investment I would have had more than the amount I’d ever receive from SS, and SS was designed as “forced investment” on ones future. Yes, it is a tax, but a tax that benefits far less than if it had been actually invested, which is what it replaces - or at least what it was supposed to replace. And replace is really the wrong word. It was to “augment” your income in the later years.
Also, when it started, it didn’t kick in until age 65, and the average life span was less than that.
I think we can both agree that whatever SS payments were or are, the government took the money and spent it and it’s gone.