My stance has and remains that the payoff from children, if it is to be violently enforced at the hand of the taxman as it is now, should be proportional to the investment, there is no reason to restrict that to just parents, it just happens to be that parents generally make the lions share of the investment.
>You still haven’t explained how you made this leap from elders to parents
It's a leap to refer to social security benefits as paid to (at least on average by far) our elders? .
That’s not how Social Security works. The current Social Security beneficiaries made contributions to their seniors, not to me (their junior).
And thus you understand. That's my whole point! That is my objection! But to be clear I didn't say that's how SS works, I said that's how the reciprocation works -- I did not say that's when you pay back the SS money elders paid you (they didnt) but rather their investment. I clearly explained SS flows upward.
The flow of investment in the youth is largely from private individuals to youth. [privatized]
But the flow (dividends) the other way is largely through SS upwards. [socialized]
That's my whole point! It's a terrible system because the reciprocation encourages free-riders and poor incentives for investment in the youth, as the ROI is poorly coupled to those making the investment.
You accused me of not understanding how Social Security works, not of how you think it should work.
Because you seem to think you're owed something 'back' when in fact the people you're asking something 'back' weren't people that you paid SS to.
What's more accurate is that SS is you paying the elderly back for their investment, not that you somehow create a debt for the children because you paid SS to the elderly. Your position there made zero sense.
Any debt you think you're owed 'back' from children who will pay you SS would be created when the children actually received something from you -- i.e. being raised, schooled, etc. Not created because you paid a 3rd party.