Carrol Cox wrote: > Go back several centuries or even a few decades in some places, and many > places still -- and children support their parents! How could it be > different? Social security is simply social rather than familial.
right. the basic idea is families used to take care of their own parents (often in the same house), while now there's a big pot of money which allows large numbers of families to share risk in taking care of their parents as a group. To some extent, it reduces income inequality, because it keeps most retired people out of poverty. It also gives the retired more autonomy from their offspring. If the social security privateers had their way (replacing the system with 401k accounts and the like), most people would have their parents moving back in with them. the trust fund allows the possibility of using other government funds to make sure this all balances. Since the "Greenspan reforms," however, we taxpayers have been putting more into the trust fund than is taken out. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
