WASHINGTON — Seventy-two years ago, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as president, promising the American people what he called a new deal.

The nation at the time was already into the Great Depression, and many Americans, who felt that a few people held all the economic cards, were happy to hear that the government might use its power to deal them in.

This week, George W. Bush will take the oath of office for the second time, promising the American people what he calls an "ownership society."

Today, the nation is adjusting to the aftermath of a boom that made tens of thousands of its citizens rich, a period in which genius, hard work and luck were rewarded on an unprecedented scale. What Bush is offering is a chance for each American to grab for this brass ring.

The appeal to independence, self-reliance and other traditional American virtues resonates with much of the public. The president clearly hopes that its attractiveness is so powerful it will persuade younger people to embrace a Social Security system that allows them to invest a portion of their payroll taxes and benefit from whatever investment success they attain.

Sea change

This shift — from the New Deal to the Ownership Society — is a sea change in the way Americans view the relationship between themselves and the government, and between themselves and the rest of society. Whereas government, unions and other collective organizations were widely seen in the 1930s as placing a safety net under workers and their families, today they are regarded by many people as stifling enterprise and protecting the lazy.

In contrast to the New Deal, the Ownership Society will have optional elements, with greater rewards but also far greater risk. While the administration's Social Security plan taps into taxes that workers are already paying, a key element of the Ownership Society is that to take full advantage of it, you must put up a great deal more of your own money — pay to play, if you will. And that principle of pay to play applies in fields ranging from retirement to education to health care.

Private employers, long the source of a truly secure retirement for so many, have already begun their retreat from the social safety net and embraced the ownership philosophy. Consider the increasingly common 401(k) and related retirement plans.

Paying in

Typically these have attractive tax benefits, and many employers who sponsor them chip in by matching a portion of the money a worker contributes. But the fact remains that the primary driver of these accounts is the worker's own money. To participate in a 401(k) plan, a worker has to take money out of his or her own paycheck and shift it to the retirement account.

And these amounts can be substantial. This year, a worker is allowed to contribute up to $14,000 to a 401(k), plus an additional $4,000 "catch-up" contribution if the worker is 50 or older. Next year, those amounts rise to $15,000 and $5,000. A working couple could conceivably contribute double those amounts.

The couple who sock away $30,000 or $40,000 a year for many years would, absent some economic catastrophe, almost certainly end up with a handsome retirement account.

Truly ambitious savers can tack on an individual retirement account, which also carries substantial tax benefits, or a Roth IRA, funded with non-deductible contributions.

The only limiting factor for many families will be their own finances.

In 2003, the median family income in the United States was about $43,500, meaning that half of all families had higher incomes and half lower.

College aid

The Ownership Society offers help with college costs, too, so that a family can pay for higher education while sparing both the parents and the children the burden of heavy student-loan debt.

The mechanism, for the family that can afford it, is the Section 529 plan.

Contributions to these plans, which are run by the states, are not deductible for federal taxes, but their earnings are tax-free when used for higher-education expenses.

Some states allow contributions of more than $100,000, and a special federal gift-tax provision allows donors to use five years' worth of annual gift-tax exclusions at once — $55,000 for one parent at current rates, double that for a couple — amounts potentially sufficient to fund even an Ivy League education, assuming moderate investment returns.

There are no federal income limits on participation in 529 plans.

Besides reducing or eliminating student debt, a big 529 plan may enable offspring of well-to-do families to attend better colleges than their high-school grades might otherwise allow. That is because all but a handful of the richest and most prestigious colleges now take ability to pay into account in admissions decisions.

Also available to some families are Coverdell education savings accounts. Contributions to these are also not deductible and are limited to $2,000. Unlike 529 plans, they are restricted to the not-really rich. The ability to contribute phases out for a married couple with income between $190,000 and $220,000.

Passing it on

But Coverdells can be used for elementary and secondary education expenses, not just college, allowing families to begin funding for a newborn, and perhaps accumulate enough to pay private-school tuition a decade later.

Many in the upper half may thrive in the Ownership Society. In addition to being able to lower their current taxes and provide generously for their own retirement, they will be able to share benefits with their children and grandchildren, perhaps giving them a leg up in their own lives.

In fact, the right to pass on savings to future generations is a thread running through many elements of the Ownership Society. That, too, is a break with past programs.

Both traditional pensions and Social Security pay a stream of income to the retired worker. But at his death, or the death of his widow, the benefit simply ends. That is not the case with 401(k)s, in which any remaining money can be bequeathed to heirs. Nor, apparently, would it be the case with the proposed personal Social Security accounts, which would be the property of the worker/retiree and part of his or her estate.

Savings hybrid

Another provision that can help the next generation will be Roth 401(k) plans, which employers will be able to offer beginning next year. Like Roth IRAs, they will be funded with a worker's after-tax dollars; similarly, withdrawals will be tax-free. But Roth 401(k)s will also allow much higher contributions than regular IRAs — the same as those for other 401(k) plans — thus allowing an end run around the income limits that make many well-to-do people ineligible for a Roth IRA.

The advantage for the next generation is that those affluent enough to let the money accumulate until they die will be able to name a child or grandchild as the beneficiary of the account. The child will be required to withdraw the money over his or her expected lifetime, receiving what is essentially a lifetime stream of tax-free income.

An extra benefit: taxes

Another factor that adds value for families in the upper part of the income scale is the extra benefit they get from tax deductions, deferrals and exclusions. When a family in the 10 percent bracket deducts or excludes a dollar, it saves a dime. When a family in the 33 or 35 percent bracket does the same, it saves 33 or 35 cents.

Taxes later on may be correspondingly higher for the wealthy family, assuming its income remains high. But for the family that is having trouble meeting living expenses, the challenge arises at the beginning, not the end: The initial ante, subsidized though it may be, can be a stumbling block. There are just too many competing daily demands on their income. In fact, many workers fail even to enroll in a 401(k) plan when it is offered.

Besides the pay-to-play aspect of the Ownership Society, there is the risk factor.

It has been noted that just as the move from a traditional pension to a 401(k) plan shifts the investment risk to the employee, so personal Social Security accounts would move risk to the worker. And, of course, 529 plans, Coverdells, even health savings accounts may still involve risk.

But, like tax deductions, risk doesn't mean the same thing at all income levels. It may also be that lower-income workers, constrained by their own finances or government rules on the amount they can invest, will be forced to take more risk or face the certainty of seeing their ownership accounts fall short of their goals or needs.

Gainers and losers

Greater risk can produce greater reward, but it doesn't necessarily do so.

A study released last week by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) in Washington found that 15 percent of retirees ages 64 to 74 lost half or more of their total wealth between 1992 and 2002, and 30 percent lost half or more of their financial wealth. On the other hand, more than half of the retirees sampled saw their total wealth rise by more than 50 percent during those years.

The study found that white men, married couples and the better educated did best at managing their wealth.

One of the major economic trends of the past decade in this country has been the widening gap between the well-to-do and the rest of society.

Advocates of the Ownership Society argue that these programs have the potential to improve this picture by enabling low- and moderate-income Americans to save and invest and build wealth as they never have before.

Clearly, that potential is there — for some. The EBRI study found that every demographic group, including low-income people and non-whites, had members who were managing their wealth well. And the people studied did not have a lifetime to accumulate wealth in 401(k) or other personal savings and investment vehicles, which began to become widespread only about 20 years ago.

But will enough of today's workers take advantage of these various vehicles? Most families, if they are honest with themselves, would admit that they could save more. They could eliminate vacations, drive an old car, eat out less frequently or go to fewer movies. But for those who are not willing to do that — if they find themselves in poverty in old age, will critics say that's what they deserve?

The better-off are already taking advantage of the benefits, and if they make full use of all the intergenerational strategies that are now allowed, today's parents may be able not only to ensure themselves of much greater wealth for their remaining years but also to lock in wealth's advantages for their children and grandchildren.