Your example is less extreme, but it is still about redistributing control. Redistributing dollars redistributes control of what people do, and how other resources are allocated.
This is related to the article, because moving control of people does not create more people. As population will be getting older, there will be more old people that less young people will need to take care of. This is a fact.
You could argue that redistributing wealth will lead to more efficient control of resources, and so it will make it easier to provide care. But it is still fundamentally about control of diminishing resources and increasing needs.
BTW - I'm Polish and my government tries to literally pay people for having children. Around 30 000$ spread across childhood (take into account that Poles earn a lot less than Americans), and while it put a small dent in fertility rate, the number of children born in Poland is currently lower than before introducing that program.
Yes, it turns out that resources are actually the thing we need to sustain older people.
> Someone will need to physically do the work that needs to be done around old people.
Someone literally is already doing the work that needs to be done for old people. It's just that most of the wealth produced from that work goes to already wealthy people.
Exactly that work (social support, and healthcare for seniors) in total numbers consumes resources, not produces them. If it wouldn't be so there would be no need to fund it from taxes.
Frankly, it sounds like you rushed with a randomly chosen slogan to this thead.
Wealthy people control resources. You can take control from them, but it will not create more resources. One, fundamental resource is human labor. This resource will decline in proportion to the total human population whether it will be controlled by wealthy people or not.
Someone will need to physically do the work that needs to be done around old people. And there will be more old people, than there will be young people.