Nothing here needs to be "refuted" because it is nonsensical mindless drivel.Recipients of 'entitlements' are accused by the uninformed of getting something for nothing. The opposite is true. According to the Urban Institute, the typical two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes will receive LESS in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Almost the same for single females.
Getting something for nothing? Yes, the rich are. Tax expenditures, which are deductions and exemptions that primarily benefit the highest-earning individuals, cost about 8 percent of the GDP, the same percentage that goes to Social Security and Medicare.
If just one of the tax breaks for the rich, the $113,700 cap on Payroll Tax, were eliminated, Social Security would be almost entirely funded for the next 75 years.
So, what would you refute? Anything? I didn't think so.
Using "the typical two-earner couple" as the example to make broad statements about entitlements is not adding anything of value to a discussion on entitlements. It's nonsense.