3 ms·

Indeed it does, but why is that a problem?

• Someone 6y ago
  You give everybody, say, a million when they turn 65. x isn’t good at managing money (maybe can’t even blame them, as they haven’t ever had any significant amount of money before), so they buy a $200k car/go to Vegas for a week/whatever (maybe incentivized by the ‘knowledge’ that “nobody in our family lives past 70”). Turns out, x lives till the age of 80, but runs out of money years before that. Do you give them more, or do you say “it’s your own fault”? y is good at handling money, but happens to have some expensive disease/happens to live till the ripe age of 110/whatever, and nevertheless runs out of money. Again, do you say “tough luck. You could have known you might live till 110”? z, at 65, has a terminal disease and knows he’ll live for at most a year. He _can_ go to Vegas, travel the world, etc. One could argue that’s some compensation for dying so young, but is that fair? Those problems can be avoided by just paying out a monthly pension to every 65-year old. Also, but a different subject: what happens to the money invested for those who die before they turn 65? If their spouse/children don’t inherit the fund and get the money on the day they would have turned 65, did you really give them that investment fund? If the money is forfeited, it seems more like you gave them a endowment policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_policy).