(July 7, 2020 at 1:32 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(July 7, 2020 at 1:24 pm)Brian37 Wrote: 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
"Punishment" would be if any law we make made him broke without committing a crime. "Punishment" is hitting someone in the wallet to the point of hurting. If he quit tomorrow and didn't make another dime, he'd be able to spend millions per month for hundreds of years.
If I made what he did, I wouldn't give a shit less about not collecting social security because with that money, I wouldn't need it. It isn't about punishing, but perspective.
There was a time when social security did not exist and wealth still existed. What social security did do when it became law was to protect the working class so that they would not be a financial burden on society. It really is simply a matter of perspective. Jeff Bezos isn't going to end up on cat food with what he has made in his life.
