Without regard to such concrete mathematical reasons, many worry about a somewhat more philosophical concern. Such a private accounts plan as is being proposed would most certainly widen the gaps in the distribution of wealth, albeit to an uncertain degree. First, since an individual's Social Security tax, and thus their investment under a hypothetical private accounts program, is 6.2% of their income (12.4% after their employer doubles it with their own payment), the more money an individual makes during their career, the more they will have to retire on. In addition, the wealthier an individual is the more likely it is that they will be able to procure sound investment advice, or educate themselves in the tricks of trading, and improve their chances of success. Under the present system, all people put in these greatly disparate payments, but it gets pooled together, and everybody benefits from it equally. This decreases the befefits which higher earners receive but raises befefits for a far greater number of people to a liveale level. Even at that, the benefits are only barely enough. Without the pooling of money, many elderly would retire to poverty. However, this present system is Socialistic, and there is much debate as to the moralities involved.

Privatization and Social Security cannot coexist, despite the proposal of the Johnson bill (the privatization bill now in Congress) that the private accounts be made optional, leaving Social Security intact for now. Presently, the revenues gathered into the Social Security system come from the higher earners overwhelmingly more than from lower earners. Because of the inequity in people's salaries, the top tenth of wage earners pay in roughly half of the Social Security revenues, which go to pay current benefits. If private accounts become an option, this portion of society will be the most likely to partake in it, and take most of the Social Security money with them.