4 ms·

>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 give

by 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.

by Edmond 7y ago

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.