It’s a question we need to think about regardless of the answer, because this program is not mathematically sustainable. We are taught to believe, that if Social Security ended that older people would become destitute. What happened before Social Security? Were all or most older people destitute before Social Security? Was that the way it was through thousands of years of civilization? Is that how it is in counties without some kind of government retirement program? Of course, the answer to all these questions is NO.
Before social security, families relied on each other, not the government. I think this reliance helps Korean famines be as close as they are. That may be the most insidious aspect of the whole program; it replaces traditional family responsibility with a government program. I would much rather have portions of my paycheck go directly toward helping my grandparents, than I would have portions of it wasted on government overhead.
Relying on government instead of children for what you are lacking after retirement, certainly cannot help the dangerously declining western birth rates. While there are many causes for the declining birthrates, (chiefly the decline of religion) it‘s easy to see that these social programs have drastically changed the societal perception of the responsibility towards our elders. Again, we see another negative aspect of Marxism. Make no mistake, Social Security is pure Marxism; it is indeed, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.