Anyway, it really looks like to me that you're making more out of what's there than what really is. No one on this thread as far as I can see is obsessing over his every dollar to make sure he has the maximum control over it. What we're saying to you is that as a matter of principle, people have the right to set their own priorities in how they live their lives and expend their resources. Obviously we can all see the usual categories of things that people should not be allowed to do for various reasons, as well as that some money needs to be taken for the general good. But Social Security is not about that. It's about compulsory charity - that is, taking from Peter and giving to Paul. There's really no way around that. You can argue that Peter should give to Paul, and that he's being selfish (or "greedy") if he does not, but that does not mean that Paul is entitled to the money. Those are two completely separate concepts.
Well that is why we have elections and get to vote. If you think about it, FICA is much harder on the people depending on this "compulsory charity" then it is on people in higher income brackets. It is a much larger percentage of their incomes and hurts them more to pay it along the way. Their living standard is lower getting to retirement because of it. Please don't suggest they might be better off investing it as these people know zip about investing.If they did they wouldn't be in the lower half of the population wealth group.
If you want someone to complain about, I suggest my cousin who is about 30 years old, 600 pounds and to my knowledge has never held a regular job in his life . He is collecting SSI and will until he dies I imagine. These are the kind of individuals that makes one wonder how the SS program is administered. Maybe the complainers should focus on Supplemental Security Income. I suspect it is these people who are bleeding the system dry if anyone is.I think this is where the money is going. Disabled, too dumb, too fat.. Hey there's help...SSI ..for life.