All Life Insurance Tips

What if children were forced to pay for parents social security pension (and not by strangers)?

The geriatric population is the most represented demographic in Washington (AARP)... ...not to mention, bio-medicine is invested heavily because of geriatric demand (instead of improving quality of life for all ages); Life-span will inevitably increase--b/c of the bio-tech industry geared towards the ever expanding geriatric population--leaving younger generations to carry the burden of Social Security longer; for every one senior citizen, eventually it'll take one younger person to support them rather than five (talk about pressure)... ---------------------------------- With all that said, what if legislation geared social security to be paid directly by the old folks' kids (and not by strangers)? It would shift the social structure of the American family; new couples would want to have--AT LEAST--two kids AND successfully raise them... Single people or couples who can't have kids will have the duty of being very professionally productive in society than ever before in order to support themselves--independently--into old age (since they don't have kids who can support them)... ...or become successful enough to enjoy a sustainable geriatric lifestyle. And as for vagabond couples who have relationships for the sake of having a child to support them into old age, the required contribution of the child for the parent growing into old age is based on a percentage of the child's future income... ...this would force parents to raise their kids successfully for the sake of receiving MORE pension based on their kids success! Another potential benefit is that because of more mothers joining the workforce and lessening the birth rate, people would be encouraged to have at least two kids (in order to have a sustainable lifestyle for the kids' two parents) ...and IF this law is abused, by parents irresponsibly giving birth to TOO many kids, those parents won't get a dime unless they rear their kids into success stories (as opposed to having too many kids today strains the overall intelligence and chance for success for modern day uber-families i.e. trailer trash) * 3 minutes ago * - 4 days left to answer. Additional Details oh, and with increasing advances in extending life span through bio tech medicine, insurance companies will see a demand for the tech by the ever-increasing geriatric population... ...and inevitably the insurance companies will force old people to live super healthy lives in order to secure those life span extending treatments. If--and inevitably, it will--this is the case, maybe university post grads and America's young, fit, capable workforce will find themselves illegally immigrating to other countries (and not the other way around)! "Personally if we went by your logic, overpopulation could become a much more imminent problem especially with the bio-tech." - Every child is a potential life saver, doctor, innovative scientist, etc. "Also, those who are unfit to raise children and really shouldn't may just adopt tons of kids and not really take care of them so that one day he/she gets to live a wonderful life while the kids are stuck paying to their... oh i'm sure they'd come up with a new word for it...parents." - If the law is only in effect for biological parents, normally irresponsible parents would WANT to retain their kids instead of putting them into adoption "Also, those who opt not to have children or can't have children even if they wanted to" - This will shape (i.e. FORCE) members of society to contribute to population growth indirectly by becoming independently productive and successful for the sake of living a sustainable, INDEPENDENT, geriatric lifestyle. "But this is based on the idea of sucess coming from hard work. You're being to simplistic, sometimes business ideas or whatever just don't work out, and it's no one's fault. Why should the parents be punished if their kids take stupid risks and can't afford to look after them? Having money doesn't just come from a good upbringing, it's luck, and talent, and ambition, a huge number of factors. It's also impossible for everyone to be rich, in order to sustain an economy, there have to be rich and poor, or else inflation will just lead to everyone being poor. And what about over population? There are already way too many people, we don't want to encorage everyone to have 2 kids. Forcing complete strangers to help each other against their own discretion, volition, free will is farce...parenting is an unconditional responsibility that should always be assumed when a couple undergo creating a family.. ..any argument against the above logic is an attack on the potential of sound parenting.

Public Comments

1. You've put a lot of thought into this. At first hesitant to agree to any government-imposed Bondage, after consideration I believe your suggestion has great merit. it would cause its own problems, as everything does, but it would turn the tide on quite a few social evils we have now. Good one!!
2. Personally if we went by your logic, overpopulation could become a much more imminent problem especially with the bio-tech. Also, those who are unfit to raise children and really shouldn't may just adopt tons of kids and not really take care of them so that one day he/she gets to live a wonderful life while the kids are stuck paying to their...oh i'm sure they'd come up with a new word for it...parents. Also, those who opt not to have children or can't have children even if they wanted to, even though you state people would want atleast two, they would be kinda screwed and i'm sure with the social security cost going to children the retirement fund would decrease making it harder than it is now.
3. But this is based on the idea of sucess coming from hard work. You're being to simplistic, sometimes business ideas or whatever just don't work out, and it's no one's fault. Why should the parents be punished if their kids take stupid risks and can't afford to look after them? Having money doesn't just come from a good upbringing, it's luck, and talent, and ambition, a huge number of factors. It's also impossible for everyone to be rich, in order to sustain an economy, there have to be rich and poor, or else inflation will just lead to everyone being poor. And what about over population? There are already way too many people, we don't want to encorage everyone to have 2 kids. A nation is like a family, a nation should look after it's own. Since so many people can afford it, why can't they help others who, through no fault of their own, can't. Yes, this system, like any system, can be abused, but if one deserving life out of 100 con-artists can be saved, then it's worth doing.
4. Our taxes would be less, which would lead to a more efficient market.
5. Old people rule, we're better organized, generally wiser and we vote, we will suck the life out of our children and complete strangers, a bitter sweet existance and by the time your able to effect any worth while changes, we will be dead and you'll be old and have to suffer from your ideas of social justice.