We seem to be saying the same thing. It is not the younger cohort's fault that they've been given an enormous liability. A great deal of that liability is to th

We seem to be saying the same thing. It is not the younger cohort's fault that they've been given an enormous liability. A great deal of that liability is to the older cohort, paying for things like their ability to retire, health care, social security, etc. It would be entirely fair for the younger generation to cut pension programs, tax retirement savings away, and cut funding for e.g. medicare so that more of their economic output can go to providing goods and services they and their children need and fixing the planet for their children instead of working to provide services for the previous generation who caused the issues and to whom they have no connection anyway. Of course when that younger cohort becomes older themselves, the same applies to them. If they did not put in the work to prepare a future generation and set that generation up for success, then they should be prepared to have no support from the children of people who did. If people plan to DINK it up, save a bunch of money, and buy their way into a comfortable life in old age, they should at least be prepared for a scenario where their money is no good when the next generation decides to tax them heavily or hit them with extortionate prices for services they need while removing social safety nets. e.g. take all of their money for a couple years in long-term care, and when it runs out, leave them homeless. People are and should be free to live they lives the want, but they should consider that it is risky to count on an overburdened future generation with no familial ties to take care of them, and they shouldn't be upset if that generation decides to cast off that burden so that they and further future generations can succeed.