Default Social Security but not China?

A company was founded that used bonds for its financing rather than stocks.  It issued bonds for various lengths of time: short term to smooth cash flow, medium term for starting new projects, and long term for capital improvements such as office buildings and factories.

When it began hiring a large number of people, it started a retirement and disability insurance fund for its employees.  It paid half of the premiums and collected the other half from the employees.  All the premiums purchased short-term bonds of the company.  Essentially, the company used the premiums to smooth its cash flow.

This went on for several decades.  Some employees never collected because they died before retirement.  Others collected for a few decades after retirement.  Few complained about the arrangement.

Then the company hired a new CEO.  He looked at the retirement fund and decided that instead of paying interest on the bonds of the fund, he could use that money to increase his own salary.  He also found a loophole in the decades-old contracts that allowed him to not pay the principle on the bonds.  He could apply it to his own salary.

There was a big hue and cry from current retirees about having their retirement checks reduced, but the votes of the bonds were controlled by the company, not the retirees.

Meanwhile,the holders of the higher interest bonds, the big banks and the foreign governments, including China, were assured that the company would meet its regular interest payments and pay the bonds in full on maturity.

Of course I should get more from Social Security than I put in

Many who dislike the idea of Social Security are complaining that recipients are receiving more than they put in. Of course I should get more from Social Security than I put in.

Of course, it is debatable how much more I should get.

OK, why should I get more? Isn't that a bit greedy?

No more greedy than anybody who buys government bonds. They expect payment of interest as well as principal. Since by law Social Security funds are supposed to go into government bonds, then there should be more money available in Social Security than was originally put in.

Social Security is an insurance program, but the reverse of health, house, or auto insurance. In the latter case, the fortunate never get any of their money back. In the case of Social Security or any other pension plan, the fortunate get more than their share back. The less fortunate died before collecting all that they put in.

The real argument should be what should have been paid all along. Some of the past increases bore no reality to the cost of living of many retirees. This is a discussion that would take hundreds of paragraphs more.

P.S. My father's father died before he collected his first Social Security check.  My mother died at 65, and, as far as I know, never collected Social Security.