[morgante]

I despise social security, mainly because it's a wealth transfer tool masquerading as retirement savings. I would love to eliminate it and have everyone just save their own money.

The reason that it's not done that way is three-fold:

(a) People's contributions are not enough to cover their social security. Instead, they depend on the current workers paying in more than the previous generation did (in a perpetual cycle).

(b) Liberals oppose the idea of personal responsibility. If you don't save any money for retirement, they think society still has an obligation to fund your retirement.

(c) It's a benefit which goes to old people and old people vote a lot.

In reality, it's just a cleverly marketed way of stealing money from the youth and giving it to old voters.

[vidarh]

In reality it was a cleverly marketed way of ensuring old people did not continue to live in utter destitution, given that a substantial proportion of the population even of "wealthy" countries are unable - not unwilling - to save enough to retire without ending deep into poverty.

[r00fus]

I think your point (b) is overly contentious and shows you don't really know much about Liberals.

In fact, most liberals I know are very much about personal responsibility - including towards society and the environment.

[clavalle]

>I despise social security, mainly because it's a wealth transfer tool

Wealth transfer is not necessarily a bad thing.

[morgante]

I don't mind some wealth transfer from the rich to the poor. It's generational wealth transfer (including from poor youth to wealthy elderly) that I oppose.