5 ms·

It is the same for men, too. I had everything set up to retire at 35... then I married. Sure, I am a more socially productive person now. My kid will someday pa

by epx 7y ago

It is the same for men, too. I had everything set up to retire at 35... then I married. Sure, I am a more socially productive person now. My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids.

Edmond 7y ago
>My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids. All things considered, that is definitely not a given. Social security for instances is tied to one's lifetime earnings, throw in the correlation between life time earnings and longevity and it smooths out to getting what you put in (roughly). There are also a lot of benefits, both employer funded and tax payer funded that goes to people with children.
- maerF0x0 7y ago
  > Social security for instances ... And parents likely have lower lifetime earnings than non-parents. So its possible they're not only funding the future of social security, but also getting less for themselves... It would be great if someone had a source if parents are net recipients of benefits beyond the societal benefit of having children.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    Many parents are supported by their children when they get older (especially in cultures where parents and older people are still valued and respected). I've got no kids and no retirement savings. No one's going to support me when I get old. If I had kids there'd be a chance that they would.
  - Konnstann 7y ago
    There's a plethora of tax breaks and deductions related to children that you can claim. Besides that, the people who don't have kids are subsidizing the education of yours through their taxes. Regarding social security, I'm fairly confident the system will collapse before I see a penny of what I'm paying in.
    - maerF0x0 7y ago
      AFAIK education is a prerequisite to employable citizens and employable citizens is a prerequisite to taxable citizens. I dont think education is a subsidy, so much as an investment.
    - derekp7 7y ago
      Those kids will be paying taxes the rest of their lives which go to fund education. Either directly (through property taxes on their home), or indirectly (the landlord has to pay property taxes, which comes from rent money). So in a way everybody pays for their own education after the fact.
    - gowld 7y ago
      Why? How old are you? Current forecast is that 80% of benefits are funded, as of 2035. Even if the funding ration continues to decline, as long seniors don't vote themselves out of Social Security, there will still be a pot of revenue from younger working people. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/estimator.html https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/estimator.html
      - Konnstann 7y ago
        Assuming I retire at 65, which is pretty much guaranteed not to happen based on economic factors as well as rising retirement age it will be around 2060, 30 years after people are projected to lose 25% of their benefits.
    - patentatt 7y ago
      As everybody know, kids are a nonstop gravy train /s But seriously, I’m guessing you don’t have kids?
    - zxcmx 7y ago
      You could also say that society subsidised your education and will do the same for other, future citizens. Also, most families who were eligible, maybe even your own, got the benefits of the tax breaks available to parents. For some reason many people seem to have a blind spot where they believe that benefits for "parents" or "children" aren't relevant to them if they aren't parents right now. But every adult was a child! ... "like, sure, but what have you done for me lately?".
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    > So its possible they're not only funding the future of social security, but also getting less for themselves... Social Security payouts relative to withholdings are strongly progressive, such that the less that you pay into social security, the greater percentage you take out once you start receiving benefits. Absent a difference in mortality (or to a much lesser degree, the age at which you start drawing), the less you contribute, the greater percentage of what you contributed will be paid out to you.
- epx 7y ago
  These benefits are largely theoretical, I don't get any of them. Here (Brazil), unless you are a public servant, regular jobs with such benefits are all low-pay. I have been working as a consultant for my whole life.
shantly 7y ago
We were on track to retire comfortably by 55 without even trying very hard, 45-50 with some effort, without even FAANG money or any sudden jumps in income. Three kids starting just before age 30 and now retirement ever is... iffy, and it's probably not going to be very comfortable if it does happen. They're really expensive. Mostly healthcare, child care, and housing (more space, but also need good schools, so pricier houses, unless you wanna pay for a good private school which is even more expensive). Probably food next, way under those three. Everything else negligible compared to those.
- madengr 7y ago
  Same boat. I’m 48 and could retire right this minute, but looming college expenses, and health insurance, are hanging by a chain on my ankle.
  - jrs235 7y ago
    Wouldn't it make sense to "retire", start a business and teach your children how to take over and run it instead of worry and invest in their "education"? If it is profitable and succeeds they can get their education in whatever they wish without breaking your bank or going to college before they are sure what they enjoy.
- koolba 7y ago
  If you do a half decent job of raising your kids you’ve also diversified your retirement prospects.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Good schools are more about the parents than location. We opted our kid into the poorest school in the city: the one where many of the students speak Spanish at home so they made it a dual language immersion school. The school administrators were shocked when we said we didn't want to waste our time applying for the subsidized lunch program (It would probably be cheaper to give every kid a free lunch than process the paper work for those who qualify) Those poor kids are just like every other kid in the world - other than they lack money. Their parents love them, and the best for them. What they define as best might not match my definition, but they want the best for them. And my son is well on his way to a second language, something that will be useful - in our opinion.
gumby 7y ago
> My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids. That's an unnecessarily reductio characterization. That kid might, say, end up working for a business started by someone without kids. New people are only an element of a diverse, functioning economy. For the record I'm a parent myself, and glad to be, but it's not right for everyone, and, I believe, not right for a significant percentage (>10%?) of those who do have them.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Or not. Society might just as well support adults who are a net net loss and expense. There is no telling if the future generation would be productive. Making progeny is not a ‘virtue’. Willing to procreate should not be considered a speculative way to raise monies for taxes.

by epx 7y ago

Edmond 7y ago

>My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids. All things considered, that is definitely not a given. Social security for instances is tied to one's lifetime earnings, throw in the correlation between life time earnings and longevity and it smooths out to getting what you put in (roughly). There are also a lot of benefits, both employer funded and tax payer funded that goes to people with children.

maerF0x0 7y ago
> Social security for instances ... And parents likely have lower lifetime earnings than non-parents. So its possible they're not only funding the future of social security, but also getting less for themselves... It would be great if someone had a source if parents are net recipients of benefits beyond the societal benefit of having children.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Many parents are supported by their children when they get older (especially in cultures where parents and older people are still valued and respected). I've got no kids and no retirement savings. No one's going to support me when I get old. If I had kids there'd be a chance that they would.
- Konnstann 7y ago
  There's a plethora of tax breaks and deductions related to children that you can claim. Besides that, the people who don't have kids are subsidizing the education of yours through their taxes. Regarding social security, I'm fairly confident the system will collapse before I see a penny of what I'm paying in.
  - maerF0x0 7y ago
    AFAIK education is a prerequisite to employable citizens and employable citizens is a prerequisite to taxable citizens. I dont think education is a subsidy, so much as an investment.
  - derekp7 7y ago
    Those kids will be paying taxes the rest of their lives which go to fund education. Either directly (through property taxes on their home), or indirectly (the landlord has to pay property taxes, which comes from rent money). So in a way everybody pays for their own education after the fact.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Why? How old are you? Current forecast is that 80% of benefits are funded, as of 2035. Even if the funding ration continues to decline, as long seniors don't vote themselves out of Social Security, there will still be a pot of revenue from younger working people. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/estimator.html https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/estimator.html
    - Konnstann 7y ago
      Assuming I retire at 65, which is pretty much guaranteed not to happen based on economic factors as well as rising retirement age it will be around 2060, 30 years after people are projected to lose 25% of their benefits.
  - patentatt 7y ago
    As everybody know, kids are a nonstop gravy train /s But seriously, I’m guessing you don’t have kids?
  - zxcmx 7y ago
    You could also say that society subsidised your education and will do the same for other, future citizens. Also, most families who were eligible, maybe even your own, got the benefits of the tax breaks available to parents. For some reason many people seem to have a blind spot where they believe that benefits for "parents" or "children" aren't relevant to them if they aren't parents right now. But every adult was a child! ... "like, sure, but what have you done for me lately?".
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > So its possible they're not only funding the future of social security, but also getting less for themselves... Social Security payouts relative to withholdings are strongly progressive, such that the less that you pay into social security, the greater percentage you take out once you start receiving benefits. Absent a difference in mortality (or to a much lesser degree, the age at which you start drawing), the less you contribute, the greater percentage of what you contributed will be paid out to you.
epx 7y ago
These benefits are largely theoretical, I don't get any of them. Here (Brazil), unless you are a public servant, regular jobs with such benefits are all low-pay. I have been working as a consultant for my whole life.

shantly 7y ago

We were on track to retire comfortably by 55 without even trying very hard, 45-50 with some effort, without even FAANG money or any sudden jumps in income. Three kids starting just before age 30 and now retirement ever is... iffy, and it's probably not going to be very comfortable if it does happen. They're really expensive. Mostly healthcare, child care, and housing (more space, but also need good schools, so pricier houses, unless you wanna pay for a good private school which is even more expensive). Probably food next, way under those three. Everything else negligible compared to those.

madengr 7y ago
Same boat. I’m 48 and could retire right this minute, but looming college expenses, and health insurance, are hanging by a chain on my ankle.
- jrs235 7y ago
  Wouldn't it make sense to "retire", start a business and teach your children how to take over and run it instead of worry and invest in their "education"? If it is profitable and succeeds they can get their education in whatever they wish without breaking your bank or going to college before they are sure what they enjoy.
koolba 7y ago
If you do a half decent job of raising your kids you’ve also diversified your retirement prospects.
bluGill 7y ago
Good schools are more about the parents than location. We opted our kid into the poorest school in the city: the one where many of the students speak Spanish at home so they made it a dual language immersion school. The school administrators were shocked when we said we didn't want to waste our time applying for the subsidized lunch program (It would probably be cheaper to give every kid a free lunch than process the paper work for those who qualify) Those poor kids are just like every other kid in the world - other than they lack money. Their parents love them, and the best for them. What they define as best might not match my definition, but they want the best for them. And my son is well on his way to a second language, something that will be useful - in our opinion.

gumby 7y ago

> My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids. That's an unnecessarily reductio characterization. That kid might, say, end up working for a business started by someone without kids. New people are only an element of a diverse, functioning economy. For the record I'm a parent myself, and glad to be, but it's not right for everyone, and, I believe, not right for a significant percentage (>10%?) of those who do have them.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

Or not. Society might just as well support adults who are a net net loss and expense. There is no telling if the future generation would be productive. Making progeny is not a ‘virtue’. Willing to procreate should not be considered a speculative way to raise monies for taxes.