No, don't ask for that -- you'd be playing yourself. They owe you the value of your contributions plus market-rate returns for that whole period (at least 7%, compounded continuously). That's an absolutely huge difference.
Oh man, were just speed running this recommend, aren't we? It's weird when people who, fully aware of how the French dealt with this "let them eat cake" bullshit... Actively work to recreate that scenario that didn't end well for their counter parts
This time, they think they have enough of the general populace controlled that they can get away with it. So far, they've been proven right every time.
Nah, they'll probably increase the age to receive it and reduce payouts starting just after an election so hopefully everyone that gets screwed forgets about it by the next one.
That's not how Social Security works, and it never has worked that way.
SocSec is not a retirement account. It is a program that provides income to people who are retired, and it is funded by payroll withholding from people who have not retired. Prior to SocSec, there was a huge problem with poverty among the elderly, people who were no longer able to work, or not able to work the kind of demanding physical labor they used to. It was then, and is still now, wrong for society to abandon people to poverty when they're no longer able to work.
I would imagine because this blue ribbon committee is going to be full of shit ideas, these Republicans aren't going to take any feedback in a honest fashion, yeah looking at you Moskowitz, and why in the hell would any Democrat want to give them ammo about the absolutely shit ideas as being bipartisan, again looking at you Moskowitz.
Oh there's no doubt it will be full of shit ideas, but at least if they are involved they can register their opposition to those shit ideas and ensure everything is reported correctly.