3 ms·

I agree in general that generations should be more supportive of each other, because most of us will go through all stages anyway. But, as usual, the problem wi

I agree in general that generations should be more supportive of each other, because most of us will go through all stages anyway. But, as usual, the problem with redistribution of money is how to set it up to prevent perverse incentives. (And a higher-level problem is, even if you find the proper algorithm, how to make it politically acceptable.) For example, I would like to support the smart and diligent kids that could be my doctors one day. However, the straightforward approach "tax adults, support schools, duh" also supports many things I disagree with. First, with more money flowing to schools, schools simply get more expensive, without necessarily increasing quality. Second, it makes no difference between useful education, e.g. the doctors, and useless education, such as... uhm, maybe it is better to avoid specific examples, but you probably can imagine a few. Similarly, not all "old people" are the same. I'd rather support a former doctor than a former criminal, for example. On the opposite side, the cultural norm of children supporting their parents also has its problems. Some people may be completely irresponsible, have dozen kids, abuse them, and then feel entitled to their support. Other people may contribute a lot to the society, but they happen to be infertile, or their kids happen to die in an accident.

riot504 9y ago
Speaking with my colleague who is Chinese, he states it is the family that supports one another. A couple gets married and the parents pay for the house and furniture, with everyone living together. While the parents pay for the children to go to school. I don't know if it is the best model, but model is micro to say the least.
gumby 9y ago
> For example, I would like to support the smart and diligent kids that could be my doctors one day...Second, it makes no difference between useful education, e.g. the doctors, and useless education, such as... > Similarly, not all "old people" are the same. I'd rather support a former doctor than a former criminal, for example. That's precisely the problem to be avoided by universal support. Some people want to make sure artists are supported, some people want to make sure doctors are, some people don't want their money "wasted" on scientists who don't believe in the {insert religious book here}, etc. > And a higher-level problem is...how to make it politically acceptable. The US social security system is a good example of this: it was made universal (not means tested) and mocked up to look like an insurance program with the explicit aim of making people believe that they "paid into an insurance system so are just getting their money out". Of course it's not really like an insurance scheme at all, no more and no less than using your current taxes to build a bridge that will be used for years. It's quite interesting to read the contemporary (1930s) internal discussions to see how nakedly they propagandized the description of the system to make sure it wasn't later killed. It's a great system; shame they had to prey upon widespread economic ignorance to manage to put it into place.

riot504 9y ago

Speaking with my colleague who is Chinese, he states it is the family that supports one another. A couple gets married and the parents pay for the house and furniture, with everyone living together. While the parents pay for the children to go to school. I don't know if it is the best model, but model is micro to say the least.

gumby 9y ago

> For example, I would like to support the smart and diligent kids that could be my doctors one day...Second, it makes no difference between useful education, e.g. the doctors, and useless education, such as... > Similarly, not all "old people" are the same. I'd rather support a former doctor than a former criminal, for example. That's precisely the problem to be avoided by universal support. Some people want to make sure artists are supported, some people want to make sure doctors are, some people don't want their money "wasted" on scientists who don't believe in the {insert religious book here}, etc. > And a higher-level problem is...how to make it politically acceptable. The US social security system is a good example of this: it was made universal (not means tested) and mocked up to look like an insurance program with the explicit aim of making people believe that they "paid into an insurance system so are just getting their money out". Of course it's not really like an insurance scheme at all, no more and no less than using your current taxes to build a bridge that will be used for years. It's quite interesting to read the contemporary (1930s) internal discussions to see how nakedly they propagandized the description of the system to make sure it wasn't later killed. It's a great system; shame they had to prey upon widespread economic ignorance to manage to put it into place.