On 2/14/15 3:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/14/2015 4:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left
behind a 4 years old son. Suddenly, he can't provide for his child
what he normally would've for the next 14 years until that child is
old enough to provide for himself. My brother paid into Social
Security his entire working life. Why shouldn't it go to his
family, his son, until he's old enough to provide for himself?



That was not the intention of SS. They sell insurance that will
provide for the family. Younger people can get term insurance cheap
if they are concerned about the family.

Like any program, the more you want to provide, the more we have to
pay in. Chances are, his family collected more than he put into the
system

We can debate that all you want and we'd probably agree more than we'd
disagree.
However, my brother played the game by the rules of the game at the
time, so his son is indeed entitled (in the truest sense of the word) to
those benefits. By law.

If the law were to change, that's another story for those who come along
later.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply