11–20 of 36 posts
This article is apparently propaganda aimed to cause people to have more children. ¿Cui bono? Is Julien worried his own pension won't be covered, or is he trying to enslave his children so the benefits of their work will go to him but not to me? There are far too many humans for the planet to support right now. People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability. It was always some combination of…
This article is apparently propaganda aimed to cause people to have more children. ¿Cui bono? Is Julien worried his own pension won't be covered, or is he trying to enslave his children so the benefits of their work will go to him but not to me? There are far too many humans for the planet to support right now. People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability. It was always some combination of…
> People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability. AFAICT, that was the primary reason people had children. Not in the sense of "support me in retirement" because people expected to work until they died, but in the sense of "grow ourselves some workers to help out on the farm" for the poor and "somebody to inherit our title" for the rich.
You already know that your social security benefit depends on the 35 highest income years during your career. You (probably) also know that each of those years get an index number that is used to adjust your income for the purpose of dealing with the effects of inflation when looking at a 35+ year career.
When you file your taxes, you are already reporting the number and ages of each dependent you have. That data already exists. So what if that information is now used as an added indexing factor for each year of reported income? The result would be that the more children you have and the earlier you have them increases the calculated social security benefit. Or rather, since the index would be a floating point number from 0-1, not having a bunch of kids would prevent you from gaining the maximum possible benefit. And it would all be so opaque that it’s hard to notice or understand!
Note that I’m not saying this is what should happen, just that it is strange that we start seeing this kind of argument at the same time we see that discussions are happening about making changes to social security…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability. AFAICT, that was the primary reason people had children. Not in the sense of "support me in retirement" because people expected to work until they died, but in the sense of "grow ourselves some workers to help out on the farm" for the poor and "somebody to inherit our title" for the rich.
Is there evidence of this urban legend?
This article is apparently propaganda aimed to cause people to have more children. ¿Cui bono? Is Julien worried his own pension won't be covered, or is he trying to enslave his children so the benefits of their work will go to him but not to me? There are far too many humans for the planet to support right now. People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability. It was always some combination of…
Moderns are sometimes quite surprised to learn that, in the West and in Christian culture, children have always been obligated to support their parents. This is a concept called "alimentation". https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01312b.htm As adult parents are obligated to care for their children, to give food, clothing and shelter for their well-being, children are also eventually obligated to their parents for the sa…
In most (if not all) states, this responsibility is permanently and irrevocably severed if the parent abandons/disowns the child, refuses to pay child support after a divorce, etc.
Even if you later make up and re-establish a relationship with an adult child, there is no way to re-establish that obligation. It is gone forever. Being a bad parent can have consequences!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there evidence of this urban legend?
Would millenia of data from primarily agricultural, family-worked farms suffice?
This is a good thing when a cell does it. Elimination of unhealthy cells and replacement by healthy cells helps keep the organism healthy. What does this say about civilisations and the human species?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People never had children to guarantee their future financial stability. AFAICT, that was the primary reason people had children. Not in the sense of "support me in retirement" because people expected to work until they died, but in the sense of "grow ourselves some workers to help out on the farm" for the poor and "somebody to inherit our title" for the rich.
Is there evidence of this urban legend?