If the money we contributed to social security were actually set aside, it would've been sustainable. <p>

Actually, then it would not work - because of the problems of scale. "Setting aside" would mean "investing", and with the amount of money involved (especially for long-term things like pension insurance), you'd soon have the social security system be the owner of a large part of the capital.

Also, leaving money in the hands of bureaucrats is probably even worse than having them spend it immediately. It would give them too much time to work out creative ways to diverts some of it into their pockets.

"Setting aside" works for individual security, but it doesn't scale to the size of "millions".

I believe the majority of the population get far less back from the government than they put in over the course of a lifetime.

Call me naive, but I enjoy the immaterial benefits of having a working social security system in place. Like not seeing people who have lost half their teeth but can't pay for dentures. Or not having a gang problem. Or not having bankruptcies because of medical bills.