I do think there should be a certain amount that after a career of getting rich, that you don't need your social security.  It isn't arguing that you didn't pay into it, everyone does even the rich. But more in to the fact that it becomes a burden on the lower classes to eventually have to pay you  back when you don't need it. Social security was never intended to help someone like Jeff Bezos. But to help middle class and working class.

"Its my money" isn't the point, otherwise why put the word "social" in the name that describes the institution "social security". 

This is the same selfish mentality a man might use being the breadwinner in a relationship and tells the women what she can or cannot buy for herself or the household. 

If Jeff Bezos were to retire and not receive a social security check with his personal wealth today, he'd be able to live fine.

Where do you draw the line and why shouldn't he receive money from a system that he supported?

(July 7, 2020 at 12:47 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I do think there should be a certain amount that after a career of getting rich, that you don't need your social security.  It isn't arguing that you didn't pay into it, everyone does even the rich. But more in to the fact that it becomes a burden on the lower classes to eventually have to pay you  back when you don't need it. Social security was never intended to help someone like Jeff Bezos. But to help middle class and working class.

"Its my money" isn't the point, otherwise why put the word "social" in the name that describes the institution "social security". 

This is the same selfish mentality a man might use being the breadwinner in a relationship and tells the women what she can or cannot buy for herself or the household. 

If Jeff Bezos were to retire and not receive a social security check with his personal wealth today, he'd be able to live fine.

Yes dear, you can have that Lamborghini, I'm good with selling my kidney on the black market. 

Didn't think that one thru and may explain your lack of understanding relationships and/or finances.

And I will be taking my SSI. As of today the plan is spending it, but not on myself or wife.

wouldn't removing the "up to $147,700" limit and lowering the percentage to under 5 percent:
A)less of a burden on big corporations means big companies have to match less and the self employed end up paying less.
B)Decrease the cut to the paycheck for lower - middle income class families
C)Tax the rich proportionately without the cap (which protects the wealthy) so that they have to pay more

The above coupled with less loopholes on the estate tax for generational wealth seems like a great way to help get us better equipped to deal with a generational national deficit. Let's be honest though, as long as politicians are greedy and corrupt the benefits will continue to go to the wealthy, mainly because while we hope we're socially mobile, it isn't anywhere close to a reality. Born poor, die poor, etc...

/2 cents

(July 7, 2020 at 12:52 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Where do you draw the line and why shouldn't he receive money from a system that he supported?

Again, how many people today would find it moral or credible if a man said about his wife, "I earn the most, I get to tell her what to do."

Nobody is denying he put in,  not the point. The point is it is still a pool, thus the word "social" and someone like Jeff with his money already have the "security'.

It isn't a matter of what he did, it is a matter of what someone that high up should want to do. Just like a moral husband isn't going to hold money issues over his wife if she is not draining him and he can afford it.

Social security was never meant to prop up billionaires. Saying once you have more than enough isn't a punishment to say others need it more than you do.  That is what "social" means. It isn't an argument to punish success.

(July 7, 2020 at 1:24 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 7, 2020 at 12:52 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Where do you draw the line and why shouldn't he receive money from a system that he supported?

Again, how many people today would find it moral or credible if a man said about his wife, "I earn the most, I get to tell her what to do."

Nobody is denying he put in,  not the point. The point is it is still a pool, thus the word "social" and someone like Jeff with his money already have the "security'.

It isn't a matter of what he did, it is a matter of what someone that high up should want to do. Just like a moral husband isn't going to hold money issues over his wife if she is not draining him and he can afford it.

Social security was never meant to prop up billionaires.

You utterly failed to even attempt an answer of the question I actually asked. Where do you draw the line? What is "comfortable" when should a participant be disallowed to reap the benefits from a system they paid in to? What does the future hold for Jeff Bezos? What if a particularly toxic stock move nukes his bank account? I like Tack's Ideas those at least increase the system so it can better weather the the people who are needing social security.

You are doing nothing more than trying to pull heartstrings. What does your analogy of the married couple have to do with social security and how the money is allocated? That is just a weird thing to even mention.

(July 7, 2020 at 1:24 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 7, 2020 at 12:52 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Where do you draw the line and why shouldn't he receive money from a system that he supported?

Again, how many people today would find it moral or credible if a man said about his wife, "I earn the most, I get to tell her what to do."

Nobody is denying he put in,  not the point. The point is it is still a pool, thus the word "social" and someone like Jeff with his money already have the "security'.

It isn't a matter of what he did, it is a matter of what someone that high up should want to do. Just like a moral husband isn't going to hold money issues over his wife if she is not draining him and he can afford it.

Social security was never meant to prop up billionaires. Saying once you have more than enough isn't a punishment to say others need it more than you do.  That is what "social" means. It isn't an argument to punish success.

But it sounds as though you’re the one advocating punishing success. If Jeff Bezos can’t draw the benefit because he’s already wealthy, isn’t that punishing him for being rich?

Boru

This is proposed by a guy living off his dead mother's pension. 

(July 7, 2020 at 1:33 pm)Fireball Wrote: This is proposed by a guy living off his dead mother's pension. 

Wow, um, that's savage!

(July 7, 2020 at 1:34 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(July 7, 2020 at 1:33 pm)Fireball Wrote: This is proposed by a guy living off his dead mother's pension. 

Wow, um, that's savage!

And complete uncalled for. What Brian is advocating has nothing to do with his personal situation.

Boru