To the extent that benefits don't correspond in a linear fashion to the amount put into it, I agree. But always the expectation was there that if you put money in, you got money out if you lived long enough. With pure means testing, that goes away. It then becomes pure welfare.
It's alway been a socialist ponzi scheme. We should just quit calling it something that it is not. I'm 45 and don't expect to ever get anythingwork from it, because the math just simply doesn't work. Demographics kill the entire system because our working population has not kept up with either the expansion of the program or the benefits being promised.
Yeah, sure, I'd like to be able to get some of my money back out, but like everything else that is stolen from me by the government, I figure it's just money pissed into a well.
Back when Clinton took office, one of the first things they did was eliminate documentation that used to be produced for budgeting purposes, that showed the expected future tax liabilities of succeeding generations by the budget as passed. You see, they were projecting 80%+ tax rates, so they just did away with that bit of projecting because it was just too obvious that we're doomed to slavery if we continue as we are.
I always find it funny to see the "conservatives" on this forum who freak out when any serious suggestion of getting rid of SS is raised, or even just reducing it to sustainable levels which requires at the minimum for retirement age to be raised to about 80-90 years. They refuse to accept the reality that if we keep going as we've been going for some time, we're all doomed. The boomers seem to want their cut and to hell with the rest of us, who are going to be slaving for them.