From: Joseph Marsden <marsden.joseph@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Another Comment
A lot of criticism of Social Security is made based upon the fact that it doesn't provide individual equity, when contributions are compared with expected benefits. By my calculations, for example, my combined employer and employee contributions will probably be enough to fund the benefits I can expect to receive twice. Is it unfair? In a way, but on the scale of unfair things in the world, I don't think this one is very high on the list. I figure that the nature of our society is such that we will not tolerate a lot of aged people in poverty one way or another, so I far prefer to have a systematic, long-term plan to address this problem as opposed to pretending it is not a problem until it becomes an immediate and desperate problem, and I'm asked (through taxes) to subsidize the impoverished aged in any case. And I figure that without a long-term plan, I'd end up paying a lot more than I do now, because I would anticipate that eventually this bite would come, and save for it, while most people would just spend whatever current tax saving they'd get. The result would be that I'd be sitting on more funds, due to my frugality, than most other people in my situation, so I'd be asked to pay that much more only based upon ability.
The old fable goes that the grasshopper played all summer long, while the ant worked, but when winter came, the grasshopper had nothing to live on, but the ant did. An alternative ending for this fable, though, is that the grasshopper eats the ant.
