Thanks to Social Security, what will be done with 12.4 percent of your salary has been decided for you by government nannies. (The 12.4 percent is 6.2 percent directly taken from your compensation plus 6.2 percent indirectly taken from your compensation as an employer payment on your behalf.) This money is going to be sent to a government retirement program, which admits to having liabilities much greater than its assets, rather than use it for something you might prefer — such as making a down payment on a house. Would it be better to save for your retirement by building equity in a house, or by having your money put into a government program which entails no property rights at all?

A constant theme of American politics is the individual and social advantages of home ownership. But a constant complaint is how difficult it is for young people to accumulate sufficient funds for a meaningful down payment, which would allow them to become property owners on a financially sound basis. One big reason that saving is hard for them is that Social Security taxes take so much of their youthful incomes, sight unseen, and, as everyone knows, these receipts are forthwith spent by the government, not saved. Having made saving harder, the government then sets up other programs to push risky, low-down-payment loans.

Suppose you are 24 years old, finished with schooling, employed, and launched into grown-up life. By 30, you would like to be married with children, or at least planning on them soon, and, by 32, you would like to buy a house for your family. Suppose you are making a moderate $40,000 a year, and will have modest annual raises of 3 percent (2 percent inflation plus 1 percent real).

Read the full text of the article on The American.