I was thinking the other day...my kids are going to be responsible for the support of people who haven't bothered to have children. The huge burden of caring for them falls on me and mine. Question: why should we bother? If you're not going to have children to at least contribute to this stupid capitalism that everyone subscribes to, why should you be allowed to sponge off the efforts of the reproductive members later?

How about the taxes everyone pays for schools? Many people don't have

children but still have to pay school taxes don't they?

Yes but children are critical to the preservation of the tax base. Do school taxes even approach senior care?

I was thinking the other day...my kids are going to be responsible for the support of people who haven't bothered to have children. The huge burden of caring for them falls on me and mine. Question: why should we bother? If you're not going to have children to at least contribute to this stupid capitalism that everyone subscribes to, why should you be allowed to sponge off the efforts of the reproductive members later?

Simple. They ALL had to pay into the system and few will ever get their money back anyway. (I'm drawing mine right now and could NEVER live long enough to get back all I paid into it.)

How about the taxes everyone pays for schools? Many people don't have

children but still have to pay school taxes don't they?

Absolutely; childless couples spend their entire working lives paying all sorts of taxes that go to benefit all sorts of people in society and yet receive no child-based benefits at all in return, not even a refund. Therefore, they are fully entitled to receive something back in their old age.

But the bulk of the costs are made up by the next generation.

Maybe it should be a proportional thing. If you've had one kid, you get so much, two kids, so much more, and so forth to some kind of cap to avoid excessive population.

The social security starts at age 67 and the average death age is 74 for

men and 78 for women. So just how long do senior citizens get helped? And

how much do they recieve?

Yes but children are critical to the preservation of the tax base. Do school taxes even approach senior care?

But the childless work to pay for today's seniors (and juniors); why shouldn't they receive their dues in their old age?

Absolutely; childless couples spend their entire working lives paying all sorts of taxes that go to benefit all sorts of people in society and yet receive no child-based benefits at all in return, not even a refund. Therefore, they are fully entitled to receive something back in their old age.

As entitled? Hmm. Why not make it proportional to a person's actual contributions to the system (although not indexed to salary since that would produce some kind of sliding social insurance chaos)? You could still receive benefits, of course, but those who've contributed to the productivity of the nation would receive proportionately more. Really, this sounds quite fair.

But the childless work to pay for today's seniors (and juniors); why shouldn't they receive their dues in their old age?

All right; make it proportional to their working life's input. But I really doubt that the payout of a little school tax is going to amount to ten or twenty years of supported senescence. There's also the issue of childrearing costs to consider; these are, naturally, quite high in their own right.

In many countries, people with children receive extra benefits and subsidies, increasing the amounts the more they have; who pays for that? What is the guarantee that those children will 1) Actually live long enough to contribute back to society 2) Actually become worthwhile members of society and not become scroungers, alcoholics or drug addicts 3) Actually stay in the country that nurtured them to offer something back?

There is no guarantee, and yet, the childless have paid in advance.

In many countries, people with children receive extra benefits and subsidies...

I do. I get tax breaks for daycare expenses and a tax break for each kid I have.
I have in-laws who have no kids. They get no breaks. They pay taxes for a school they will never send kids to.
It all balances out though.

And Geoff, what do you mean "haven't bothered to have kids"? What if they can't?

Actually: does it balance out? Clearly, it can't, if Western societies are so desperate for immigrants to support the tax base. I don't think tax breaks for people with kids actually does balance things out; especially not given college and university costs.

As for "can't"; clearly biological limitation should be a consideration.

Tab: you're right, there is no guarantee. So shouldn't there be a more pressing need for children? Their staying in the country is a question of opportunity and taxation. Although, to be fair, capitalism is broken anyway. It doesn't work. That's a subject that also requires redress, and soon.

Look, I hate to say it, but this really isn't even a question. Western nations are going pear-shaped on their demography. This is a very, very, very bad thing. What's going to happen when all the childless boomers hit retirement age? There'll be even fewer people to pay for their support. In my family alone, we're almost the only ones having kids and - true to Tab's point - the ones that are have run to the US. (So are we.) If this norm were anything like true (and thank God it isn't), my three would have to pay for over half a dozen people. Does this make any sense at all?

Yes.

Tell you what, Geoff - you agree to hand me, at age 67, the total amount of money that I will have put into educating and raising and caring for and vaccinating and making buildings, cars, drugs, streets, etc safe for other people's children (and repairing the general wear and tear of kids)

starting with at least a thousand a year for forty five years in property taxes for the local elementary schools, and not forgetting the colleges and military,

with interest, of course, untaxed

and you can keep the "old age benefits".

I'll throw in the contributions to the old folks that eased your parental burden - unless you think having the grandparents move into the back bedroom would have been helpful - -

Not that I feel abused in the least - it's a privilege to help raise children, and be a member of a community. But get real, son.

I was thinking the other day...my kids are going to be responsible for the support of people who haven't bothered to have children. The huge burden of caring for them falls on me and mine. Question: why should we bother? If you're not going to have children to at least contribute to this stupid capitalism that everyone subscribes to, why should you be allowed to sponge off the efforts of the reproductive members later?

what about people who have reproductive problems? don't they deserve care?

ice, the first part of your description suggests that this more relates to your job as opposed to your federal or state contributions to the tax base. I'm not implying individual idleness here, ice.

A thousand a year for property taxes is a substantial contribution, yes: but the 45K amassed thereby doesn't amount to much more than a few years of retirement costs, does it? Renewal of the tax base - that 45K and so forth - is required to make a difference. You can't really "throw in the contributions from the old folks that eased my parental burden", because they're required to eas other people's financial parental burden. The point is that the system can't renew itself, since we're not having enough children ourselves. There are individual exceptions to the rule, sure, but the society is not having enough kids. Part of that is probably tax burden itself.

You tell me to get real...but this is reality. We cannot afford to have a vast number of people of reproductive age are sitting on their hands...or doing other things with them. Part of this is probably due to the silly the largesse of Western society, and its emphasis on money and pointless acquisition - I saw some or other nimrod on TV last night who was forcefully declaiming her sole rights to distribute "Hello Kitty" jewelry, which was important, apparently, for some reason. This is a problem. It was a problem yesterday, and it's one right now, too.

Economic burden is another reason that people probably aren't having kids; everyone wants to get into university or college and if their kids don't, they seem to have some kind of conniption, resulting in work that no one wants to do: again, more elitist, capitalist attitude. It needs to stop.

what about people who have reproductive problems? don't they deserve care?

Like I said: within capacity. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

Or, to spell it out: they do. Not their fault they didn't have kids. Although I would think adoption would be best, societally.

A thousand a year for property taxes is a substantial contribution, yes: but the 45K amassed thereby doesn't amount to much more than a few years of retirement costs, does it? A thousand a year put into an average 401k over 45 years would handle my retirement nicely, thank you. Even just the compounded interest from an ordinary, federally insured CD investment program - tax free of course - would do for my modest needs.

You are treating child expenses as an investment, after all - and quite properly, IMHO.

And you still haven't considered the rest of the expenses so unfairly foisted upon the childless, for other people's children.

I could turn the argument on its head as easily: why should people who have produced children - significatnly at the expense of society - be given old age benefits? Don't they have children to support them ?

Well, you seem to be covered via the 401K, which is good. Being that it's so easy, does anyone need retirement benefits? :) Is there or not a fairly large proportion of people who can't afford a 401?

I appreciate what you're saying about children supporting their parents; but they've paid out to support society by having kids. Their expense to society is more than repaid over their lifetime.

Well, you seem to be covered via the 401K, which is good. Being that it's so easy, does anyone need retirement benefits? Is there or not a fairly large proportion of people who can't afford a 401? You mistake me - I haven't got a 401k. The money for that went for property taxes and other expenses involved in raising other people's children.

They're worth it, I suppose, but they aren't cheap. I could easily afford a modest retirement on what I will have put into elementary schools alone, by the time I retire - if I can, even, the way things are going.
I appreciate what you're saying about children supporting their parents; but they've paid out to support society by having kids. Their expense to society is more than repaid over their lifetime. Well that depends, doesn't it. Are these kids going to help support the people who helped pay for their schooling and etc, or not?

You mistake me - I haven't got a 401k. The money for that went for property taxes and other expenses involved in raising other people's children.

Ah. (...really? $1000 a year? That's all? :bugeye:)

They're worth it, I suppose, but they aren't cheap. I could easily afford a modest retirement on what I will have put into elementary schools alone, by the time I retire - if I can, even, the way things are going.
Well that depends, doesn't it. Are these kids going to help support the people who helped pay for their schooling and etc, or not?

That's it precisely, isn't it: "the way things are going".

As for whether the kids will help or not - one hopes so. Basically it's just feeding back into the same model of capitalism so as to prevent complete chaos - which is likely to be the result. The tax load, bad as it is now, will be crippling, and soon, as it falls on fewer and fewer workers per dependents.

...hum. From the poll I take it there's some minor opposition to my little scheme. :D

As for whether the kids will help or not - one hopes so. Basically it's just feeding back into the same model of capitalism so as to prevent complete chaos - which is likely to be the result. The tax load, bad as it is now, will be crippling, and soon, as it falls on fewer and fewer workers per dependents. And that was provided for, by building up a surplus in Social Security among other prudential moves.

So all we have to do is tax the huge accumulation of wealth and income in the people who received the benefit of the borrowings from SS, in order to pay back the deficit in payout, and we're good to go.

And if we get really short, we can reduce "old age benefits" now being paid to the wealthy - our setup has worked so well that old people are better off than young ones, on average, and can afford to support their own demographic class.

There's a surplus in Social Security? There isn't in Canada.

I don't think reducing benefits to the wealthy is going to do it. Wealthy only comprises a small proportion of Americans, doesn't it?

There's a surplus in Social Security? There isn't in Canada.

I don't think reducing benefits to the wealthy is going to do it. Wealthy only comprises a small proportion of Americans, doesn't it? Social Security in the US has been running huge surpluses for many years now, from the large boost in tax rates on the the working poor designed to cover the baby boom retirement bulge, which have been borrowed by the Federal Government.

The wealthy, defined as the upper 20%, include a disproportionate number of old people, whose social security benefits are used to buy indoor treadmills for exercising their dogs. The combination of taxing their income at, say, 1960s rates (the time of America's greatest prosperity), and reducing their benefits to what a reasonable welfare setup would pay to the rich, would ease any demographic burden on the young considerably.

Old people are not poor, as a demographic class, in the US. As a class, the older boomers are probably self-supporting in principle - with appropriate taxation and benefit policies, of course. They need not be a burden on the young.

The childless should ideally be generously rewarded for their dramatically reduced environmental impact. Breeders multiply the world's misery.

Be fruitless and mollify.

Well, if that's your choice, could you be good enough to die off quietly so my offspring can assume your place? Thanks.

The childless should ideally be generously rewarded for their dramatically reduced environmental impact. Breeders multiply the world's misery.

Be fruitless and mollify.

Cosigned. :D

P.S. I can't believe Iceaura is 67 :eek:

Exhumed: "I can't believe Iceaura is 67"

I don't think he is. Referring to the present minimum age for collecting Social Security of 67 (which cosmictraveler mentioned in Post 7) it seems iceaura was offering GeoffP some salient points to consider (Post 15) in looking ahead to the future.

GeoffP: "could you be good enough to die off quietly so my offspring can assume your place? Thanks."

Sure thing, and you're welcome, especially since I don't reside in Palestine.

I think a stronger argument could be made for the more kids you have the less governmental 'old age' benefits (entitlements) one should receive.

Thanks hype. My descendants applaud your good sense and timely, well-informed concession.

I wonder why is it that those who have children think they are doing everyone else a favor.

There are enough unwanted children (and abortions) to put that illusion to rest.

Are they out getting jobs?

There is a deficit of people to pay for the elderly. This is not a problem of my invention.

Benefits should not be conditional, it's unethical. We are a rich nation, we can afford to pay for everyone's care from birth until death.

I wonder why is it that those who have children think they are doing everyone else a favor.

There are enough unwanted children (and abortions) to put that illusion to rest.

Exactly! I've also noticed that some parents can display that 'holier than thou' attitude towards people w/o children, as if they are better people or something.

I think it was said best earlier in this thread. People with no children still have to pay taxes that fund schooling for children that isn't theirs.
Why can't parents pay taxes that fund social security that includes people who never had children?

So many children use resources from a country and parents then move to another country to produce and donate. What about the losses suffered by their parents and countrymen? They did not give back to the society they took from.

One person may be childless and rich, and another have 11 kids and be poor. It all evens out in the end.

Benefits should not be conditional, it's unethical. We are a rich nation, we can afford to pay for everyone's care from birth until death.

Yes, but not if no one's bloody having kids we can't.

And just look at that poll distribution. I can't believe that so many people can be so wrong. :eek:

Yes, but not if no one's bloody having kids we can't.

And when did we stop having kids? Even so we can tax businesses. If it comes to it, we can end a variety of unnecessary expenses, like the Pentagon.

I like the way you're thinking; but it's not that we stopped having kids, it's that we're having so few. I know lots of people that aren't. It isn't good.

Having many children could also lead to economic hardship. Our goal should be zero population growth. Medical care these days is unnecessarily expensive. We would save so much on a modicum of preventative care under a universal health care system that it would pay completely for elderly care.

Zero's fine, but we're in decline. That's worse innit?

Even better. That's less to spend on education and college.

Zero's fine, but we're in decline. That's worse innit?

US population growth is negative?

I like the way you're thinking; but it's not that we stopped having kids, it's that we're having so few. I know lots of people that aren't. It isn't good.
The earth is overpopulated as it is, and is ever-increasing, and you're telling me that it's a bad thing that we're having so few?? :crazy:

From a national economy's perspective, yeah. Not worldwide, obviously.

Look, oi'm just sayin'! Sheesh.

But seriously, you're all wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

Shit, I think even my sock puppet voted against me. But in my defense, he's a prick.

From a national economy's perspective, yeah. Not worldwide, obviously.

Look, oi'm just sayin'! Sheesh.

But seriously, you're all wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

Why are we wrong, wrong wrong?

US population growth is negative?

No, he's talking about Europe. The internal population growth there is negative, although I believe that with immigration it's basically stable.

In the United States, the internal population growth is just above replacement level, and with immigration it adds up to like 0.9% annual growth.

US population growth is negative?It is if you only count people who were born here. Immigrants reproduce at greater than replacement level but the rest of us don't. Even the second-generation American-born children in some immigrant communities have less than two children per couple. I'd wager that the average fertility rate of all Americans who are children of immigrants is only slightly higher than the national average.I was thinking the other day...my kids are going to be responsible for the support of people who haven't bothered to have children. The huge burden of caring for them falls on me and mine. Question: why should we bother? If you're not going to have children to at least contribute to this stupid capitalism that everyone subscribes to, why should you be allowed to sponge off the efforts of the reproductive members later?What makes you think that only people who have children are contributing to the prosperity of their civilization? I look around and see a lot of parents who have done such a dismal job of raising their children that their family's net contribution to this country is negative. Why should they be rewarded with old-age benefits when their children are coasting along on public schools and welfare that I'm paying for? A lot of childless people participate directly in the support of other people's children by becoming teachers, doctors, etc.

I think if you do the math you'll find that it's a far greater "burden" on the populace to subsidize your children than it is to subsidize retired people who never had any.

Now if you want to talk about taking the government out of the picture and requiring everybody to manage their own retirement program and plan their lives so they can support themselves on the fruits of their labor, then you're starting to sound like a fellow libertarian.

Hey GeoffP, I've not had any children, and do not plan on it either. And just who will I be sponging off in retirement? I have a private pension.

Now, you may argue that not all people will make such provision, and I will counter that saying that not all kids will be as productive as others, get jobs, and pay tax.

And kids will benefit from my earnings in the long run, someone has to inherit my house, and it will be the childred of my friends, so it all works out in the end.

Well, if you have a private pension, then I don't suppose it's any skin off the public trough. Good on you, sir.

Anyway, I'm sure that some kids won't get jobs and pay tax - but are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Surely they could be put to some useful, economic diversion?

Anyway, I'm sure that some kids won't get jobs and pay tax - but are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Surely they could be put to some useful, economic diversion?


Sure, the state could employ them. Give them a nice little uniform and get them to clean the streets for little money. Needs a name, .... how about 'Communism', ...

I was thinking the other day...my kids are going to be responsible for the support of people who haven't bothered to have children. The huge burden of caring for them falls on me and mine. Question: why should we bother? If you're not going to have children to at least contribute to this stupid capitalism that everyone subscribes to, why should you be allowed to sponge off the efforts of the reproductive members later?

Does it matter what kinds of kids one has?
If one has criminals?
And how do we evaluate the parents of an Enron executive? Their income minus all the damage they did? Can we make the parents pay the people who lost their retirement plans?

Sure, the state could employ them. Give them a nice little uniform and get them to clean the streets for little money. Needs a name, .... how about 'Communism', ...

Perfek! I like the way you're thinking. Now this system would need some kind of leader. A Great one, even.

Look: all 27 of you disagreers quit trolling my thread. :mad: