What was never set up as a savings account?
My comment was pointing out the absurdity of taxing a specific group of people more because in their old age they will become a greater burden on the state than another group. Consequently forcing them into becoming dependent on the state by reducing their ability to save and invest for themselves. It's a vicious cycle and the original commenter doesn't seem to recognize the absurdity of that position. In the OP's proposal, I'd have higher tax rates because I've not yet had children. But once I do have children, what, do I get it all back? Or am I just forced to suck up the unnecessarily reduced income for the past 20 years? What if my children (god forbid) don't survive to adulthood themselves. Will I start getting taxed more again due to this tragedy? Of course, this already happens now as you lose a dependent for tax purposes.
The position is absurdist unless the objective is to further reinforce dependence on the state.
I'll point out that the OP suggests increasing taxes on the childless over what they are already taxed now. Which suggests a greater swing than just the loss of a dependent on your taxes in the case of the death of your children. Adding insult to injury, as it were, for my last question.
That doesn't seem like a terribly effective "solution" unless the goal is to maintain the status quo, especially given the vicious cycle it introduces.