The question isn't so much whether social spending is a personal investment but rather whether trigger pullers with badges and automatic weapons enforce it or the laborer personally invests as he sees fit in ways that enable social charity and retirement without the threat of imprisonment.
Sure but the question is about the law that the trigger pullers enforce. If the laborer can invest his retirement rather than having it taken, redistribute, then told if there is no Trump v2 maybe there will be something for him -- maybe he decides the rule of law is to put the power of social spending on the individual rather than a corrupt government who's treasury system is controlled by unelected billionaires.
I also would like to believe that quite a small minority see social spending solely as a personal investment.