These discussions about the tax burden of seniors are about two things in the end: health care and assisted living.
Assisted living means: workers to cook meals for seniors, to help them dress, to remind them to take their pills, etc. In our advanced industrialized societies, we offload that burden to young workers in their prime. In more traditional societies like Japan, senior communities don’t need young workers because they rely on one another. Let seniors cook for one another, help one another get dressed, etc. And let young workers go start businesses or work on cancer cures or build software and help society get richer as a whole.
https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-_-secre...
There’s still the health care aspect to deal with (seniors can’t do heart surgery on one another), but we could decrease the tax burden of over 65s by switching to a Japanese model.
I don't understand all the causes. Some is labour rights history (freeing children from the mills was a social victory), some is weird labour bargaining (a child doing a union job is a scab), and some is class anxiety from parents (only servants should wash a floor). Not to mention that given a choice, the young and old alike will chose free servants over doing their own chores.
For seniors, another cause is the novelty of mass retirement. North America was very young until recently, and we could afford to extend retirement benefits to people who'd never paid a dime in because there were so few of them.
My instincts are egalitarian, so I believe it doing for myself. Silver plate is for suckers, unless you like to cosplay as the help for an afternoon. But the world is full of people who just _must_ have servants.
https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-ca...
Basically - having supportive family take care of you is great, when you have supportive family. Not everyone does. Even in Japan, with a long Confucian culture, they had problems with elder care being too much for younger family members; with elderly being neglected and left to fend for themselves; and even with elder abuse and homicide. Now try applying that to America, where the social fabric is frayed, the norm since WW2 has been for children to move away from their parents in adulthood, and many people don't even have functioning intergenerational relationships at all.
It’s a bit of a chicken-egg problem in the US—we try to keep seniors out of assisted living because it’s incredibly expensive and has a reputation for poor quality; those things are the case because they require lots of paid labor, but also don’t pay great, resulting in high costs but also often-not-great quality; so seniors who have other options tend not to enter assisted living, so capable seniors aren’t around to do any of the work that might reduce reliance of the system on paid labor…
I think people feel the pinch because growth has been at best very low for a long time while inflation has accelerated in the past few years.
On the other hand, population has to stop growing at some point and, say, immigration has already been causing huge problems in France.
Income tax depends on number of children.
Nursery fees depend on income.
I believe cost of school meals depend on income.
Child benefits payments. I think this is now based on income but it used not to be.
Cash payment at beginning of school year to help pay for school stuff, etc. though I think this is also depending on income.
So sure lower earners benefit more but everyone gets something.
Many countries would think this is very good.
I am French and I moved to the UK a long time ago. My income tax actually went up. In the UK income tax depends on... income. Your children are irrelevant.
A lot of benefits do disappear when your QF is higher than 6 to be fair with you, but still.
In an economically declining country that prioritizes social spending on pensions to the point of crowding out investment in the future, the young might just emigrate.
It occurs to me that this could be the fuel for a vicious cycle in countries where the government assumes high responsibility for social care: low birth rates create a population skewed older, which requires greater taxes on younger citizens, which places them under greater financial stress, which further suppresses the decision to have (or to have more) children.