(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.
