3 ms·

Sure, but I wonder who you think will pay for these "social services" after we retire if not our kids.

• zaidf 16y ago
  Pretty much. I personally prefer directly helping my folks than doing so via a middle party(the gov).
  • jterce 16y ago
    Absolutely. The effect is the same, the former is just a bit more efficient.
    • tomkarlo 16y ago
      Probably not. Pooling the resources is more likely to be efficient. If you do it at the individual level, everyone has to allocate resources for some kind of maximum likely cost versus allocating for the average need. That's also why it's more efficient to say, buy fire insurance than set aside the amount of money necessary to cover a fire - pooling risk. I'd much rather be in a society where there are sufficient social services for the elderly and higher taxes than one where I have to depend on either my own savings or my children's earnings to cover my (very unpredictable) post-retirement needs. (Unpredictable because of the wide range of years I may live post-65.) Otherwise you have huge opportunity costs because of the need to allocate for a worst-case scenario.
      • zaidf 16y ago
        Pooling the resources is more likely to be efficient. May be on paper. But at least the way it works in the US, the so-called fund(aka social security) that is supposed to help you out in old-age is pretty much bankrupt.