To be fair, I think the main point was simply that if you had to choose, it’s absurd that well-off people get the benefits of something that’s supposed to be for supporting those in need in their twilight years.
Your (correct) point of view assumes they’re simply getting back what they’re owed from paying in (just like SS, which is logical). But as this story relays, the problem is they’re not simply paying back what is owed. It’s a Ponzi scheme because in reality there was no “savings account” to simply give back to those who paid in; it’s merely paid out randomly (if you will) from current monies from current payers.
Thank you for your reasonable reply.
However, I would say that it is equally absurd that anyone should be forced to pay into a system, and then be disbarred from enjoying its benefits, merely because they have been thrifty throughout their lives.
Only charity should be means-tested.
Regards,