Quote:
Originally Posted by bware
My view is admittedly simplistic, but in my mind, a reasonable role for government support programs would be to even out the variance in life. Get cancer? Don't worry, we have a robust health insurance program to make sure you don't go broke trying to stay alive. Born poor in the ghetto? We have a strong education system to support you regardless of your situation. (I realize neither of those things are currently true).
SS doesn't fit in that view for me. In this simplistic hypothetical I've created, we've built a strong Healthcare system and a strong education system, so if you haven't made some retirement money after 45 years of working then that's probably on you.
Well, yeah, that view is based on false premises, which you seem to realize.
But even if it was "probably on you" instead of "possibly on you", we've agreed that doesn't matter, we are still going to give you financial assistance. Because we feel bad if we didn't, because there are actually economic strains if we didn't, and because it doesn't cost as much as it "seems" anyway, since you're going to spend it immediately on services you need to live.
I think it saves money and also makes people feel way better to have this assistance work this way, but I'm fine if you want to eliminate it as long as you replace it with the same amount of assistance that comes from elsewhere.
But that's not how it works in America. It won't get replaced. Definitely not fully, and definitely not without a long gap in time that killed people.