4 ms·
Some cultures expect children to take care of their parents once they hit 18. This might not be financially, but culturally driven.
by itake 3y ago
Some cultures expect children to take care of their parents once they hit 18. This might not be financially, but culturally driven.
- jncfhnb 3y agoWhat culture would that be??
- pc86 3y agoThe ancient Imadeitup people.
- watwut 3y agoEurope was like that. Your primary and only real social security was a familly. You had property, but not much savings. Kids were expected to provide for their parents in old age. Secondary was a village. It was like that in 19century too, I am not talking about some ancient history.
- jncfhnb 3y agoParents were not in old age when kids were 18
- tekla 3y agoMostly every east Asian country that has a background with Confucianism. So at least 2 Billion People.
- standardUser 3y agoYou want us to believe any culture has a contingent of 18-year-olds out-earning their 40-something parents?
- tekla 3y agoI was not aware the premise of the comment had anything to do with out-earning parents. The responded to comment was >Some cultures expect children to take care of their parents once they hit 18. This might not be financially, but culturally driven. And the answer is, yes, you are expected to take care of parents as soon as you are able to.
- downrightmike 3y agoThat's what social security is for. And not being able to support parents is why we started social security in the first place.
- dharmab 3y agoThe US Social Security surplus will be depleted in 2033 (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html), after which point Social Security will be paying back the same amount that people paid into it. People of my generation who are becoming parents now will receive few social security benefits over their lifetime. As the program currently exists, my generation is being robbed of money that we could invest ourselves.
- downrightmike 3y agoWe could just fix that
- dharmab 3y agoWho is "we"? Congress would need to fix it and the current dysfunction is politically useful to certain key members.
- pc86 3y agoIt's useful to everyone because as soon as more than 2 people sit down to discuss fixing it everyone has their pet thing that absolutely cannot change under any circumstances. So you end up with half the room saying "you can't cut benefits 1 penny" and the other half saying "you can't raise taxes 1 penny" with 80% of people saying you can't raise the retirement age 1 day. It's a classic stalemate where whoever gives first ends up giving up most of their side. The reality is that if we're going to keep this type of ponzi scheme around through the death of all the boomers we need to raise the retirement age 5 or 10 years, cut benefits by 20-30% and raise the SS taxes by 20-30% in addition to eliminating the income cap on those taxes. But imagine trying to get something that comprehensive passed that pisses off both sides that much.
- porridgeraisin 3y agoIndia is one country where that is the norm.
- dharmab 3y agoNot at 18. They're definitely expected to sense remittances when they have a stable job, but depending on the career that may start in the 20s.