Because pooling risk and providing a baseline standard of living helps everyone, not just the direct beneficiaries of entitlements; for instance, current entrepreneurs aren't paralyzed in steady corporate jobs out of fear that they will need to supplement their parents income to prevent them from eating cat food.

Again: of course it is true that skilled investors can net a better return on their FICA dollars than Social Security can. Social Security isn't an investment program.

I'm still going to have to disagree. You are only looking at one side of the equation, those receiving the benefits and ignoring those who are harmed. How many companies go out of business because they can't compete due to these taxes, how much investment is lost/misdirected since an individual cannot decide where to invest their funds. I could have invested in a store in my neighborhood, but instead the money will be spent by someone in some other area. It's hard to know exactly what we're missing out on because of the massive amount of wealth redirection.

I don't know how many businesses fail because of FICA taxes, but I'm not super sympathetic to the argument, since me and my partners make W2 payroll for a decent sized group of people, and we're doing OK. Relative to much of the industrialized world, the US has an attractive tax rate and an attractive standard of living.

What I do know is that prior to Social Security, young workers being a prisoner to the financial circumstances of their aging extended family was a real problem, and it's not one we think about that much anymore. So I'm pretty happy with that.

Skilled investors? You'd get a better return from the CD at your bank.

Conceded. I think my point still stands, though.