Absolutely. The effect is the same, the former is just a bit more efficient.
I'd much rather be in a society where there are sufficient social services for the elderly and higher taxes than one where I have to depend on either my own savings or my children's earnings to cover my (very unpredictable) post-retirement needs. (Unpredictable because of the wide range of years I may live post-65.) Otherwise you have huge opportunity costs because of the need to allocate for a worst-case scenario.
May be on paper.
But at least the way it works in the US, the so-called fund(aka social security) that is supposed to help you out in old-age is pretty much bankrupt.