But, you know what eventually happens to them. "Winter is coming?" Right now, life insurance companies are looking at a bimodal (two peaks) death rate. The "poor" live high and fast now, because there is no future for them and disproportionately die under 65 without touching SS. You on the other hand are probably on the second peak where you'll get 20 years more than they will. Is it such a bad proposition given that? It's kind of like high school scaled up. If you are at a normal sized one (between 150 and 800 in a class), you've already left the vast majority of them behind. Why look back? Why raise a hand to help them, you know why they got into that situation (and to the people who say that is fate, there's series of decisions that avoid the worst of it due to the way welfare is structured). I'm comfortable with welfare paying more than it "should" because it doesn't miss those who really deserve and need it. The most I can do for welfare is to pay my taxes as the government (mis)handles it to my conscience.
For my part, I'm committed to dying at 60. I've worked hospice long enough to know that rich or poor, death is the great equalizer, and morbidity is the great humiliator, so no to that for me. I have no intention of being old, so while I do keep exercising and such for morbidity concerns, I'm not going to say no to that claret.
I do give five digits before the decimal point to the local community college district annually (and I specifically will take night work to ensure that gets donated every year). I was a major beneficiary of the system to get credits before HS graduation, and I look at it as returning the investment favor to deserving young ambition. Yeah, it's tax-deductible, but that's not the point. I want society to turn out more of those people, so I'm willing to "give"/invest. But, it's my choice, as is your money with yours.