[Protagoras]

One paid 12.4% FICA during their working years. The other paid 1.24%. Fair?

The idea that a ponzi scheme can somehow be made "fair" by tinkering with the details is inane.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Agreed, the author's point is that if we want to redistribute wealth, then Social Security is not the best way in all cases. This is bull thought, because she realizes that SS works fine for a lot of the people.

Nothing the government does works for everyone, and social security was meant for something other than wealth redistribution when it was started. (It has been changed to a liberal give away over time.)

Since we don't want wealth redistribution, we don't care if SS pays back to some people who are well off. As the article said, they are entitled to what they get because they paid in.

I don't understand why programs need to end up with everyone fairly paid and happy, that sounds like socialism to me. Lets suggest that SS be revised to be a capitalist system. If we force people to save, (not good for personal freedom) then let's force them to learn to invest too. Then terminate the "forcing function" and let people save and invest without the government involvement. Neat idea huh?

[leadpenny]

One paid 12.4% FICA during their working years. The other paid 1.24%. Fair? ~ Me.

The idea that a ponzi scheme can somehow be made "fair" by tinkering with the details is inane. ~ You.

What does your comment have to do with what I have been saying on this thread?