Frederick L. Hoffmann[139] gives us one of the sanest and most compendious summaries of the negative views on this whole subject. Present systems have not eliminated poorhouses or the pauper’s grave. Of the 1,981,208 individuals in the United States over 70, according to the census of 1898, a great majority would welcome a pension; and of all legislation this is most irreversible. On the contrary, old beneficiaries constantly agitate for more. State pension systems, too, do not materially reduce the cost of charitable relief, whether indoor or outdoor. Only in a last resort should the state attempt to do what can be done by private institutions or by private individual foresight and nothing should discourage voluntary thrift of any kind. Where pensions have caused the removal of beneficiaries from asylums or almshouses, the results have generally been unfavorable. Pensions are chiefly of benefit to those not within the scope of poor law administration or private charitable aid. It is just this class which pensions would help that is now most efficient in helping themselves. If the family is at all kept up to its ideal, the young will help the old as they have been helped by them. This is not charity but mutual aid based upon mutual obligation for service rendered and there can be no substitute for this. It is this class that forms the backbone of a nation and which, by even moderate foresight, could provide for a modest support in their old age. The billions of dollars that they have invested in savings banks and in insurance institutions of various kinds show that they are not unmindful of the future. Legislation is needed to stamp out fraudulent enterprises designed to attract small savings on the plea of large returns; therefore, security should be the first consideration in such investments. The prevailing wages should make it possible for the masses of wage earners to provide the support necessary for their old age, at their own cost and in their own way, if they are given sufficient intelligence and motive and could feel sufficient security. To take an example, 5 per cent of a wage of $900 per annum, or $45, commencing with the age of 30 and continuing to 65, would produce an annuity of $450. Of course, the earlier in life the periodical payment begins, the smaller would be the annual amount required to be paid. The fact is that parents who have done well by their children seldom come to grief in their old age, except by special misfortune. Nothing must be done to weaken the virtues here involved. The view that old-age pensions should be given as a right and not as an act of charity is one-sided, because wage workers have not spent their lives in behalf of the state but have sought to aid themselves in their own way and sold their services to the highest bidder.[140]