And, even normal pensions (those that used to be common from large companies and still exist in local/state gov’t)- any one person is expected to get back out more than they put in- as the pension fund has earnings and a lot of dudes die before they can collect, and others leave before they are vested. So, sure, in Soc Sec if you do get to retirement age, you will likely take out more than you put in, but that’s normal.
But since Soc Sec also pays out to the disabled, etc, it’s is also a bit like a welfare system. This is where the funds from those who earn more than $100K would go to. Those who never have paid in. I think it is thus fair to have no top limit on paying in, but a top limit on getting out.
This also painlessly solves any Soc Sec deficit issue.
But you know, even in a normal pension, if you die early your estate doesn’t always get your contributions out. It depends on how it’s vested, minimum retirement age, # of years, etc. For example, my Mom had a real pension. But she died before she was able to collect. In this case, since she died after 20 years of contributions, and after age 50, Dad did get a small monthly check. But if she had died earlier, Dad wouldn’t have got anything.
It’s a pool, not a savings account.
And, you know, today- 108 isn’t crazy. However, many don’t have that many full quarters. Most dudes earn crap during their 20’s.
I was not talking about “normal pension”. Here is what I posted: “If it was set up in a way where you would have a personal, named, account into which the money was deposited and grew with that account’s contents being disbursed as part of your estate should you die early, that wouldn’t be true.”
And accordingly the benefit they get is less. Thus the calc would be different.