It can't be ideological only, the vast majority of people directly involved "are in" not necessarily just for the money, but they wouldn't, or rather couldn't, be there without the money/if it wasn't paying, at the end of the day When $100 is budgeted for "the poors", you have something like $1 actually landing in the pocket of the said poors The rest goes in the pockets of the "middle men"
It's a huge chain beneficiaries first and foremost. That doesn't exclude ideologically motivated individuals from participating of course, but no one is going to pay the rents with "ideas"
Social security was never for the poor, it's a pension every worker pays into. The poor never even qualify for maximum benefits as the pension is relative to income. But with the exception of Canada and New Zealand, no western countries have invested a significant portion of those wage payments as the first generation to qualify paid only a handful of years into the system. It was structured under the premise of 2.5 children per couple with a life expectancy of 72 years. Neither is true and both were obviously incorrect nearly 50 years ago.
True
(post is archived)